Re: [PATCH] Document huge memory/cache overhead of memory controller in Kconfig

[Ray Lee]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John Stoffel wrote:
>  > I know this is a pedantic comment, but why the heck is it called such
>  > a generic term as "Memory Controller" which doesn't give any
>  > indication of what it does.
>  >
>  > Shouldn't it be something like "Memory Quota Controller", or "Memory
>  > Limits Controller"?
>  >
>
>  It's called the memory controller since it controls the amount of memory that a
>  user can allocate (via limits). The generic term for any resource manager
>  plugged into cgroups is a controller. If you look through some of the references
>  in the document, we've listed our plans to support other categories of memory as
>  well. Hence it's called a memory controller

While logical, the term is too generic. Memory [Allocation] Governor
might be closer. Memory Quota Controller actually matches the already
established terminology (quotas).

Regardless, Andi's point remains: At minimum, the kconfig text needs
to be clear for distributors and end-users as to why they'd want to
enable this, or what reasons would cause them to not enable it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/