From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765537AbYBUG4y (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:56:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753442AbYBUG4o (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:56:44 -0500 Received: from e28smtp06.in.ibm.com ([59.145.155.6]:59436 "EHLO e28esmtp06.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753772AbYBUG4m (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:56:42 -0500 Message-ID: <47BD1F97.8030202@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:22:07 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Organization: IBM User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki CC: John Stoffel , Jan Engelhardt , Andi Kleen , akpm@osdl.org, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document huge memory/cache overhead of memory controller in Kconfig References: <20080220122338.GA4352@basil.nowhere.org> <47BC2275.4060900@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <18364.16552.455371.242369@stoffel.org> <47BC4554.10304@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <18364.20755.798295.881259@stoffel.org> <47BC5211.6030102@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080221154916.723fed49.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20080221154916.723fed49.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:45:13 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: > >>> But for computers, limits is an expected and understood term, and for >>> filesystems it's quotas. So in this case, I *still* think you should >>> be using the term "Memory Quota Controller" instead. It just makes it >>> clearer to a larger audience what you mean. >>> >> Memory Quota sounds very confusing to me. Usually a quota implies limits, but in >> a true framework, one can also implement guarantees and shares. >> > This "cgroup memory contoller" is called as "Memory Resource Contoller" > in my office ;) > > How about Memory Resouce Contoller ? That is a good name and believe me or not I was thinking of the same name. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d28relay04.in.ibm.com (d28relay04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.61]) by e28smtp01.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m1L6uZbC023316 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:26:35 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (d28av05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.67]) by d28relay04.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m1L6uZRX897034 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:26:35 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av05.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m1L6uYLC023642 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:56:34 GMT Message-ID: <47BD1F97.8030202@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:22:07 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document huge memory/cache overhead of memory controller in Kconfig References: <20080220122338.GA4352@basil.nowhere.org> <47BC2275.4060900@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <18364.16552.455371.242369@stoffel.org> <47BC4554.10304@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <18364.20755.798295.881259@stoffel.org> <47BC5211.6030102@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080221154916.723fed49.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20080221154916.723fed49.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: John Stoffel , Jan Engelhardt , Andi Kleen , akpm@osdl.org, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:45:13 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: > >>> But for computers, limits is an expected and understood term, and for >>> filesystems it's quotas. So in this case, I *still* think you should >>> be using the term "Memory Quota Controller" instead. It just makes it >>> clearer to a larger audience what you mean. >>> >> Memory Quota sounds very confusing to me. Usually a quota implies limits, but in >> a true framework, one can also implement guarantees and shares. >> > This "cgroup memory contoller" is called as "Memory Resource Contoller" > in my office ;) > > How about Memory Resouce Contoller ? That is a good name and believe me or not I was thinking of the same name. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL -- 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