On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 13:47 -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
@@ -747,7 +747,15 @@ virProcessSetMaxMemLock(pid_t pid, unsigned long long bytes) if (bytes == 0) return 0; - rlim.rlim_cur = rlim.rlim_max = bytes; + /* We use VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_PARAM_UNLIMITED internally to represent + * unlimited memory amounts, but setrlimit() and prlimit() use + * RLIM_INFINITY for the same purpose, so we need to translate between + * the two conventions */ + if (virMemoryLimitIsSet(bytes)) + rlim.rlim_cur = rlim.rlim_max = bytes; + else + rlim.rlim_cur = rlim.rlim_max = RLIM_INFINITY; I know I'm not very smart, but I had trouble parsing this. What about: if (virMemoryLimitIsInfinity(bytes)) rlim.rlim_cur = rlim.rlim_max = RLIM_INFINITY; ... This reads better, and avoids using virMemoryLimitIsSet() which seems very error-prone. It doesn't check for zero and it's strange that "limit < infinity" means "limit is set".
I would love to have something like that, and in fact I spent a significant amount of time trying to clean up the way libvirt stores and represents memory limits. The short version is: not gonna happen ;) Moreover, while the current API looks poorly named in this context, it's also used for other memory limits and the names make more sense there, so it's not a terrible API when you look at the big picture. The case where bytes is zero is accounted for, though. You can see it right at the beginning of the hunk. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization