Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:49:16 +0900 | | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Document huge memory/cache overhead of memory controller in Kconfig | |
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:45:13 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > But for computers, limits is an expected and understood term, and for
> > filesystems it's quotas. So in this case, I *still* think you should
> > be using the term "Memory Quota Controller" instead. It just makes it
> > clearer to a larger audience what you mean.
> >
>
> Memory Quota sounds very confusing to me. Usually a quota implies limits, but in
> a true framework, one can also implement guarantees and shares.
>
This "cgroup memory contoller" is called as "Memory Resource Contoller"
in my office ;)
How about Memory Resouce Contoller ?
-Kame
|  |