Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Nick Piggin wrote: > > >>I'm not sure about containers & workload management people, but from >>a core mm/ perspective I see no reason why this couldn't get in, >>given review and testing. Great! > > > Nack. We already have the ability to manage workloads. We may want to > extend the existing functionality but this is duplicating what is already > available through cpusets.
If it wasn't clear was talking specifically about the hooks for page tracking rather than the whole patchset. If anybody wants such page tracking infrastructure in the kernel, then this (as opposed to the huge beancounters stuff) is what it should look like. But as I said above, I don't know what the containers and workload management people want exactly... The recent discussions about using nodes and cpusets for memory workload management does seem like a promising idea, and if it would avoid the need for this kind of per-page tracking entirely, then that would probably be even better. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
