Chandra, On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:58:18 -0800 chandra seetharaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like the idea of multiple controllers for a resource. Users will have > options to choose from. Thanks for doing it. You are welcome. Thanks for the comments. > I have few questions: > - how are shared pages handled ? Shared pages are accounted to the class that a task in it allocate the pages. This behavior is different from the memory resource controller in CKRM. > - what is the plan to support "limit" ? To be honest, I don't have any specific idea to support "limit" currently. Probably the userspace daemon that enlarge "guarantee" to the specified "limit" might support the "limit", because "guarantee" in the pzone based memory resource controller also works as "limit". > - can you provide more information in stats ? Ok, I'll do that. > - is it designed to work with cpumeter alone (i.e without ckrm) ? Maybe it works with cpumeter. > comment/suggestion: > - IMO, moving pages from a class at time of reclassification would be > the right thing to do. May be we have to add a pointer to Chris patch > and make sure it works as we expect. > > - instead of adding the pseudo zone related code to the core memory > files, you can put them in a separate file. That's right. But I guess that several static functions in mm/page_alloc.c would need to be exported. > - Documentation on how to configure and use it would be good. I think so too. I'll write some documents. Thanks, -- KUROSAWA, Takahiro ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
