> Balbir Singh wrote: > > YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: > >>>> + int batch_count = 128; /* XXX arbitrary */ > >>> Could we define and use something like MEM_CGROUP_BATCH_COUNT for now? > >>> Later we could consider and see if it needs to be tunable. numbers are > >>> hard to read in code. > >> although i don't think it makes sense, i can do so if you prefer. > >> > > > > Using numbers like 128 make the code unreadable. I prefer something > > like MEM_CGROUP_BATCH_COUNT since its more readable than 128. If we ever > > propagate batch_count to other dependent functions, I'd much rather do > > it with a well defined name. > > > > I just checked we already have FORCE_UNCHARGE_BATCH, we could just > rename and re-use it. i don't think it's a good idea to use a single constant for completely different things. YAMAMOTO Takashi _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
