[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830804072332w712e11f4j74a57769ac211389@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 23:32:28 -0700
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.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)
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > *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.
If you consider virtual address space limits a useful way to limit
swap usage, that's true.
But if you don't, then memory and CPU are more closely linked since
they represent real resource usage, whereas virtual address space is a
more abstract quantity.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists