[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1158777488.8574.103.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:38:08 -0700
From: Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>, devel@...nvz.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 20:27 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Yes, I read that in your patches, I was wondering how the cpuset
> approach would handle this.
>
> Neither are really satisfactory for shared mappings.
>
In which way? We could have the per container flag indicating whether
to charge this container for shared mapping that it initiates or to the
container where mapping belongs...or is there something different that
you are referring.
-rohit
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists