On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 09:26 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 06:26:50PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > There appears to still be some serious issues in the patch with respect > > to per-zone accounting. There is only accounting in each ckrm_mem_res > > for each *kind* of zone, not each zone. > > In the absense of NUMA/DISCONTIGMEM, isn't 'kind of zone' and 'zone' > the same ? Correct me if this assumption is wrong.
Yes, that is correct. Do you not expect your code to work with NUMA or DISCONTIGMEM? > > Could you explain what advantages keeping a per-zone-type count has over > > actually doing one count for each zone? Also, why bother tracking it > > per-zone-type anyway? Would a single count work the same way > > fits the NUMA/DISCONTIGMEM issue discussed above. I don't think it fits it very well, it kinda just glosses over it. A great fit would be something that tracked how much each class was using in each zone, not each kind of zone. Perhaps a controller would like to keep an individual class from using too much memory in any particular NUMA node. The current memory controller design would keep that from happening. -- Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes Want to be the first software developer in space? Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412&alloc_id=16344&op=click _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
