I have overlooked the `none' setting...
On Thu 08-01-15 23:15:04, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> +static int memory_low_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> +{
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(seq_css(m));
> + unsigned long low = ACCESS_ONCE(memcg->low);
> +
> + if (low == 0)
> + seq_printf(m, "none\n");
> + else
> + seq_printf(m, "%llu\n", (u64)low * PAGE_SIZE);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
This is really confusing. What if somebody wants to protect a group
from being reclaimed? One possible and natural way would by copying
memory.max value but then `none' means something else completely.
Besides that why to call 0, which has a clear meaning, any other name?
Now that I think about the naming `none' doesn't sound that great for
max resp. high either. If for nothing else then for the above copy
example (who knows what shows up later). Sure, a huge number is bad
as well for reasons you have mentioned in other email. `resource_max'
sounds like a better fit to me. But I am lame at naming.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
