Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:22:07 +0530 | | From | Balbir Singh <> | | Subject | Re: [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
|  |