From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:00:53 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] RFC: Memory Controller In-Reply-To: <4547305A.9070903@openvz.org> Message-ID: References: <20061030103356.GA16833@in.ibm.com> <4545D51A.1060808@in.ibm.com> <4546212B.4010603@openvz.org> <454638D2.7050306@in.ibm.com> <45470DF4.70405@openvz.org> <45472B68.1050506@in.ibm.com> <4547305A.9070903@openvz.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Pavel Emelianov Cc: balbir@in.ibm.com, vatsa@in.ibm.com, dev@openvz.org, sekharan@us.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, haveblue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pj@sgi.com, matthltc@us.ibm.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, rohitseth@google.com, menage@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Pavel Emelianov wrote: > Paul Menage won't agree. He believes that interface must come first. > I also remind you that the latest beancounter patch provides all the > stuff we're discussing. It may move tasks, limit all three resources > discussed, reclaim memory and so on. And configfs interface could be > attached easily. > There's really two different interfaces: those to the controller and those to the container. While the configfs (or simpler fs implementation solely for our purposes) is the most logical because of its inherent hierarchial nature, it seems like the only criticism on that has come from UBC. From my understanding of beancounter, it could be implemented on top of any such container abstraction anyway. David -- 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