On Thu, 14.07.11 13:17, Patrascu, Cristian ([email protected]) wrote:
> I've changed the options, it was indeed confusing, sorry for that. > Very good observation, Thank you! Christian, I finally had a closer look at your patch. I like the idea, but not all of the implementation. (Well, I have changed my mind a bit on the best approach here...) I think it would make sense to internally just store a list of raw cgroup attributes, and not actually have per-attribute values. The high-level MemoryLimit= and MemorySoftLimit= settings would then simply be settings that would create additoin cgroup attributes. the code that applies them woul dnot treat MemoryLimit= in any way special. And this would allow us to have a generic "ControlGroupAttribute=" setting or so, where users can set arbitrary attributes without needing high-level support from us. The big benefit of MemoryLimit= over ControlGroupAttribute= would be user friendliness and documentation. User friendliness means that we'd implicitly add the right controllers to our list, and that we offer nicer syntaxes, such as parsing of "5M", "4K" and "2G" or so. Sorry for changing my mind on the implementation I'd prefer here. To make this up to you, I'll now look into implementing this myself, since that is probably easiest. I'll try to make sure that I support the same high-level settings as your patch introduced. So, plz stay tuned. [Oh, and your other patch (regarding restart params) I didn't forget.] Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
