[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] RFC: Memory Controller
    On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Pavel Emelianov wrote:

    > Paul Menage won't agree. He believes that interface must come first.
    > I also remind you that the latest beancounter patch provides all the
    > stuff we're discussing. It may move tasks, limit all three resources
    > discussed, reclaim memory and so on. And configfs interface could be
    > attached easily.

    There's really two different interfaces: those to the controller and those
    to the container. While the configfs (or simpler fs implementation solely
    for our purposes) is the most logical because of its inherent hierarchial
    nature, it seems like the only criticism on that has come from UBC. From
    my understanding of beancounter, it could be implemented on top of any
    such container abstraction anyway.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-11-01 07:05    [W:0.020 / U:3.440 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site