Balbir Singh wrote: > Paul Menage wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Could you not either: >>>> >>>> - include these two extra fields in res_counter? >>>> - include res_counter as the first field in a res_counter_ratelimit? >>> The second solution would save some space if the "ratelimit" part is not used. >> Having a "policy" field in res_counter seems like it might be reusable >> as something for other non-ratelimited res_counters. And even if it's >> not, the memory overhead of a couple of extra fields in a res_counter >> is trivial compared to the overhead of resource isolation anyway. >> >> So my first approach to this would be just extend res_counter, and >> then split them apart later if it turns out that they really do need >> mutually incompatible code/handlers. > > Yes! I agree Good! I'll go for this. Thanks, -Andrea _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
