Re: [-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v8)

From: Balbir Singh
Date: Sun Apr 06 2008 - 02:32:50 EST


Paul Menage wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
--
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/