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.

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers