Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:01:43 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [-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
| |