Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:49:15 +0400
Kirill Korotaev <[email protected]> wrote:
We need to go over this work before we can commit to the BC
core. Last time I looked at the VM accounting patch it
seemed rather unpleasing from a maintainability POV.
hmmm... in which regard?
Little changes all over the MM code which might get accidentally broken.
I still think doing simple accounting per-page would be a better way to
go than trying to pin down all "user allocatable" kernel allocations.
And would require all of about 2 hooks in the page allocator. And would
track *actual* RAM allocated by that container.
Can we continue that discussion (ie. why it isn't good enough). Last I
was told it is not perfect and can be unfair... sounds like it fits the
semantics perfectly ;)
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
