[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory)
Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 00:47 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> <snip>
>> Some not quite so urgent ones - like support for guarantees. I think
>> this can
> IMO, guarantee support should be considered to be part of the
> infrastructure. Controller functionalities/implementation will be
> different with/without guarantee support. In other words, adding
> guarantee feature later will cause re-implementations.
I'm afraid we have different understandings of what a "guarantee" is.
Don't we?
Guarantee may be one of

1. container will be able to touch that number of pages
2. container will be able to sys_mmap() that number of pages
3. container will not be killed unless it touches that number of pages
4. anything else

Let's decide what kind of a guarantee we want.
>> be worked out as we make progress.
>>> I agree with these requirements and lets move into this direction.
>>> But moving so far can't be done without accepting:
>>> 1. core functionality
>>> 2. accounting
>> Some of the core functionality might be a limiting factor for the requirements.
>> Lets agree on the requirements, I think its a great step forward and then
>> build the core functionality with these requirements in mind.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kirill

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: 2006-09-08 09:35    [W:0.143 / U:0.592 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site