lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Document huge memory/cache overhead of memory controller in Kconfig
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> 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 ?

That is a good name and believe me or not I was thinking of the same name.

--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-21 07:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans