lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSun, 06 Apr 2008 12:01:43 +0530
FromBalbir Singh <>
SubjectRe: [-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v8)
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-06 08:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2008