Re: [PATCH] String conversions for memory policy

> > > This piece here only does conversion to a string representation so it 
> > > should not be affected by locking issues. Processes need to do proper 
> > > locking when using the conversion functions.
> > 
> > It's useless.
> 
> So your point of view is that there will be no control and monitoring of 
> the memory usage and policies?

External control is implemented for named objects and for process policy.
A process can also monitor its own policies if it wants.

I think the payoff for external monitoring of policies vs complexity 
and cleanliness of interface and long term code impact is too bad to make 
it an attractive option.


-Andi

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • NUMA policy interface
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH] String conversions for memory policy
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] String conversions for memory policy
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] String conversions for memory policy
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] String conversions for memory policy
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] String conversions for memory policy
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] String conversions for memory policy
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] String conversions for memory policy
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] String conversions for memory policy
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] String conversions for memory policy
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] String conversions for memory policy
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] push rounding up of relative request to schedule_timeout()
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpqfc: fix for "Using too much stach" in 2.6 kernel
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] String conversions for memory policy
• Next by thread: NUMA policy interface
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]