[RFC][PATCH] allow "unlimited" limit value.

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Paul Menage wrote:

> > nit pick, should be memory.limit_in_bytes
> >
> 
> Can we reconsider this? I do think that plain "limit" would enable you
> to have a more consistent API across all resource counters users.
> 

Why aren't limits expressed in kilobytes?  All architectures have 
PAGE_SIZE defined on that order.

If I echo -n 8191 > memory.limit_in_bytes, I'm still only going to be able 
to charge one page on my x86_64.  And then my program's malloc(5000) is 
going to fail, which leads to the inevitable head scratching.

I think it would be best to express memory.limit in terms of KB, divide 
that by PAGE_SIZE to store internally in res_counter.limit, deal with 
charging for memory internally in terms of number of pages, and exposing 
it back to userspace in terms of res_counter.limit * PAGE_SIZE (KB).

		David