[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2c0942db0802200854t64e9ac73g41f0031f4cd995d4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:54:59 -0800
From: "Ray Lee" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: "John Stoffel" <john@...ffel.org>,
"Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>, akpm@...l.org,
torvalds@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document huge memory/cache overhead of memory controller in Kconfig
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> John Stoffel wrote:
> > I know this is a pedantic comment, but why the heck is it called such
> > a generic term as "Memory Controller" which doesn't give any
> > indication of what it does.
> >
> > Shouldn't it be something like "Memory Quota Controller", or "Memory
> > Limits Controller"?
> >
>
> It's called the memory controller since it controls the amount of memory that a
> user can allocate (via limits). The generic term for any resource manager
> plugged into cgroups is a controller. If you look through some of the references
> in the document, we've listed our plans to support other categories of memory as
> well. Hence it's called a memory controller
While logical, the term is too generic. Memory [Allocation] Governor
might be closer. Memory Quota Controller actually matches the already
established terminology (quotas).
Regardless, Andi's point remains: At minimum, the kconfig text needs
to be clear for distributors and end-users as to why they'd want to
enable this, or what reasons would cause them to not enable it.
--
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