lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans