[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47F86E4F.2080103@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:01:43 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, taka@...inux.co.jp,
linux-mm@...ck.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v8)
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >> It's easier to set it up that way. Usually the end user gets the same SLA for
>> >> memory, CPU and other resources, so it makes sense to bind the controllers together.
>> >>
>> >
>> > True - but in that case why wouldn't they have the same SLA for
>> > virtual address space too?
>> >
>>
>> Yes, mostly. That's why I had made the virtual address space patches as a config
>> option on top of the memory controller :)
>>
>
> *If* they want to use the virtual address space controller, that is.
>
> By that argument, you should make the memory and cpu controllers the
> same controller, since in your scenario they'll usually be used
> together..
Heh, Virtual address and memory are more closely interlinked than CPU and Memory.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
--
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