[Devel] Re: [PATCH] Simplify memory controller and resource counter I/O
Balbir Singh
balbir at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Thu Oct 4 20:31:58 PDT 2007
Paul Menage wrote:
> Hi Balbir,
>
> Any thoughts on this patch?
>
Hi, Paul,
I remember seeing this patch, sorry for not responding earlier
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
>
> On 9/25/07, Paul Menage <menage at google.com> wrote:
>> Simplify the memory controller and resource counter I/O routines
>>
>> This patch strips out some I/O boilerplate from resource counters and
>> the memory controller. It also adds locking to the resource counter
>> reads and writes, and forbids writes to the root memory cgroup's limit
>> file.
>>
Forbidding writing to the root resource counter is a policy decision
I am unable to make up my mind about. It sounds right, but unless
we have a notion of unlimited resources, I am a bit concerned about
taking away this flexibility.
>> One arguable drawback to this patch is that the use of memparse() is
>> lost in the cleanup. Having said that, given the existing of shell
>> arithmetic, it's not clear to me that typing
>>
memparse(), makes it so much easier, we need to use it.
>> echo $[2<<30] > memory.limit
>>
Very geeky! I don't like it personally
>> is especially harder than
>>
>> echo 2G > memory.limit
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Paul Menage <menage at google.com>
>>
I like the read_uint() and write_uint() overall, but in the case
of setting the limit, I'd still like the flexibility of having
a strategy pattern that would make the UI more friendly.
Do read_uint() and write_uint(), just read and write unsigned
integers?
[snip]
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list