Re: Memory controller merge (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)

On 10/2/07, Hugh Dickins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I accept that full swap control is something you're intending to add
> incrementally later; but the current state doesn't make sense to me.

One comment on swap - ideally it should be a separate subsystem from
the memory controller. That way people who are using cpusets to
provide memory isolation (rather than using the page-based memory
controller) can also get swap isolation.

Paul
-
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/

---

• References:
  • -mm merge plans for 2.6.24
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Memory controller merge (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
    • From: Balbir Singh <[email protected]>
  • Re: Memory controller merge (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH 30/32] IGET: Stop HOSTFS from using iget() and read_inode() [try #2]
• Next by Date: 2.6.23-rc9: Oops in cache_alloc_refill() mm/slab.c
• Previous by thread: Re: Memory controller merge (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
• Next by thread: Re: Memory controller merge (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]