linux-kernel - Re: [ckrm-tech] RFC: Memory Controller

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6599ad830610310854ke6bac53sf1be893efc0d5942@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:54:34 -0800
From:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To:	"Pavel Emelianov" <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc:	balbir@...ibm.com, vatsa@...ibm.com, dev@...nvz.org,
	sekharan@...ibm.com, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	haveblue@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pj@....com,
	matthltc@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, rohitseth@...gle.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] RFC: Memory Controller

On 10/31/06, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org> wrote:
>
> Paul Menage won't agree. He believes that interface must come first.

No, I'm just trying to get agreement on the generic infrastructure for
process containers and extensibility - the actual API to the memory
controller (i.e. what limits, what to track, etc) can presumably be
fitted into  the generic mechanism fairly easily (or else the
infrastructure probably isn't generic enough).

Paul
-
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/