Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 00:47 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> <snip>
>> Some not quite so urgent ones - like support for guarantees. I think
>> this can
> IMO, guarantee support should be considered to be part of the
> infrastructure. Controller functionalities/implementation will be
> different with/without guarantee support. In other words, adding
> guarantee feature later will cause re-implementations.
I'm afraid we have different understandings of what a "guarantee" is.
Don't we?
Guarantee may be one of

  1. container will be able to touch that number of pages
  2. container will be able to sys_mmap() that number of pages
  3. container will not be killed unless it touches that number of pages
  4. anything else

Let's decide what kind of a guarantee we want.
>> be worked out as we make progress.
>>> I agree with these requirements and lets move into this direction.
>>> But moving so far can't be done without accepting:
>>> 1. core functionality
>>> 2. accounting
>> Some of the core functionality might be a limiting factor for the requirements.
>> Lets agree on the requirements, I think its a great step forward and then
>> build the core functionality with these requirements in mind.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kirill

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[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]
  Powered by Linux