OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [RFC][PATCH] allow "unlimited" limit value.
Re: [RFC][PATCH] allow "unlimited" limit value. [message #20704 is a reply to message #20703] Tue, 25 September 2007 11:54 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Balbir Singh is currently offline  Balbir Singh
Messages: 491
Registered: August 2006
Senior Member
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:19:18 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi, Kamezawa-San,
>>
> Hi,
> 
>> Your changes make sense, but not CLUI (Command Line Usage) sense.
>> 1. The problem is that when we mix strings with numbers, tools that
>>    parse/use get confused and complicated
> yes, maybe.
> 
>> 2. ULONGLONG_MAX is a real limit, there is no such thing as unlimited.
>>    If the user does ever go beyond ULONGLONG_MAX, we will limit him :-)
>>
> Oh. res_counter.c  uses LONGLONG_MAX as default value.
> need fix ? or intended ?

Pavel do you remember why LONG was chosen instead of ULONG?

> And okay there is no "unlimited" state.
> 
>> Having said that, I do wish to have a more intuitive interface for
>> users. May be a perl/python script to hide away the numbers game
>> from the users. What do you think?
>>
> I agree with you that perl/python script can hide details. but they need knowledge
> about the maximum value, which is given as default value.
> 
> In short, what I want is some value like RLIM_INFINITY in ulimit.
> 

I like the idea of RLIM_INFINITY and how ulimit as a tool shows
a value. I guess we need something like RES_COUNTER_LIMIT_MAX
and the user tool can show the limit as maximum. We could also
define a special number, RES_COUNTER_LIMIT_INFINITY, such that
containers will not enforce limits when the limit is set to
this value.

> 
> Because it seems that res_counter.c will be used for other resouce control purpose,
> I thought some generic way (value) to know/specify "the maximum value" is helpful for
> all resource controller interface.
> 
> If there is an concensus that treaing ULONGLONG_MAX as default, it's ok.
> 

When I worked on the first version of res_counters, I used 0 to indicate
unlimited. When Pavel posted his version, I think derived from
beancounters, we did not want to have unlimited containers, so he used
the maximum value

> Thanks,
> -Kame
> 

Thanks for looking into this,

-- 
	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
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [PATCH] Fix cgroup_create_dir() comments
Next Topic: [PATCH] Remove unused member from nsproxy
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Sep 27 17:18:30 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04240 seconds