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    [W:0.021 / U:59.328 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site