[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:0.217 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site