Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v3 04/13] XML parsing for memory tunables

* Nikunj A. Dadhania <nikunj(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com&gt; [2010-10-08 14:43:34]: > On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:10:53 +0530, Balbir Singh <balbir(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com&gt; wrote: > > * Nikunj A. Dadhania <nikunj(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com&gt; [2010-10-08 12:00:44]: > > > > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 12:49:29 +0100, "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 12:47:22PM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 12:16:42 +0530, Balbir Singh <balbir(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > > * Nikunj A. Dadhania <nikunj(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com&gt; [2010-09-28 15:26:30]: > > > <snip> > > > > > > > + unsigned long hard_limit; > > > > > > > + unsigned long soft_limit; > > > > > > > + unsigned long min_guarantee; > > > > > > > + unsigned long swap_hard_limit; > > > > > > > > > > > > The hard_limit, soft_limit, swap_hard_limit are s64 and the value is > > > > > > in bytes. What is the unit supported in this implementation? > > > > > > > > Actually if libvirt is built on 32bit these aren't big enough - make > > > > them into 'unsigned long long' data types I reckon. > > > > > > > I was thinking that as we are having the unit of KB, we would be able to > > > represent 2^42 bytes of memory limit, ie. 4 Terabytes. Won't this suffice in > > > case of 32bit? > > > > > > > How would you represent -1 (2^63 -1) as unlimited or max limit we use > > today? > > > I think I have answered this question in the thread: this is specific to > cgroup that -1 means unlimited, this may not be true for other HVs. OK, so how do we handle unlimited values in general?