[Devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH] allow "unlimited" limit value.

[Pavel Emelyanov]

Balbir Singh wrote:
> Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:19:18 +0530
>>>> Balbir Singh <balbir at 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?
>> To prevent the overflow in "charge" routine.
>> See, if you add two numbers less than LONG_MAX, but with
>> unsigned long type each, you will never have an overflowed result.
>>
> 
> Aah.. Thanks, my memory short circuited on me.
> 
>>>> 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
>> Yup! Setting LONGMAX pages for container means that this container
>> is unlimited, since there're no such many pages on any arch :)
>>
> 
> Pavel, we no longer account in pages, we do it in bytes. Second,
> this assumption cannot hold for long, memory sizes are growing,
> I think we need a special value.

I see. And I also see that we've switched into unsigned long long.

Well, no container may have the ULLMAX (or what is it?) bytes
touched/allocated :) So I don't see any need in a special value.

> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Kame
>>>>
>>> Thanks for looking into this,
>>>
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers