From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:19:20 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] Memory controller soft limit introduction (v3) Message-Id: <20080630131920.68d2cc23.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <48685A72.3090102@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20080627151808.31664.36047.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> <20080628133615.a5fa16cf.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <4867174B.3090005@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080630102054.ee214765.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <486855DF.2070100@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080630125737.4b14785f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <48685A72.3090102@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Andrew Morton , YAMAMOTO Takashi , Paul Menage , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:30:50 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > Hmm, that is the case where "share" works well. Why soft-limit ? > > i/o conroller doesn't support share ? (I don' know sorry.) > > > > Share is a proportional allocation of a resource. Typically that resource is > soft-limits, but not necessarily. If we re-use resource counters, my expectation > is that > > A share implementation would under-neath use soft-limits. > Hmm...I don't convice at this point. (because it's future problem) At least, please find lock-less approach to check soft-limit. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org