On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:04:08 +0530
> ...
> I am not against guarantees, but
>
> Consider the following scenario, let's say we implement guarantees
>
> 1. If we account for kernel resources, how do you provide guarantees
> when you have non-reclaimable resources?
First, the current patch is based only on pages available in the
struct mm.
I doubt that these pages are "non-reclaimable"...
And guarantee should be ignored just because some kernel resources
are marked "non-reclaimable" ?
> 2. If a customer runs a system with swap turned off (which is quite
> common),
quite common, really ?
> then anonymous memory becomes irreclaimable. If a group
> takes more than it's fair share (exceeds its guarantee), you
> have scenario similar to 1 above.
That seems to be just a subset of the "guarantee+limit" model : if
guarantee is not useful for you, don't use it.
I'm not saying that guarantee should be a magic piece of code working
for everybody.
But we have to propose something for the customers who ask for a
guarantee (ie using a system with swap turned on like me and this is
quite common:-)
Patrick
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Patrick Le Dot
mailto: [email protected]@bull.net Centre UNIX de BULL SAS
Phone : +33 4 76 29 73 20 1, Rue de Provence BP 208
Fax : +33 4 76 29 76 00 38130 ECHIROLLES Cedex FRANCE
Bull, Architect of an Open World TM
www.bull.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]
