From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <47B32B27.4090406@openvz.org> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:38:47 +0300 From: Pavel Emelyanov MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/4] Modify resource counters to add soft limit support References: <20080213151201.7529.53642.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20080213151214.7529.3954.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <47B324F4.1050102@openvz.org> <47B326BA.7040000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <47B326BA.7040000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Hugh Dickins , Peter Zijlstra , YAMAMOTO Takashi , Paul Menage , Lee Schermerhorn , Nick Piggin , "Eric W. Biederman" , David Rientjes , Andrew Morton , Rik Van Riel , Herbert Poetzl , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: Balbir Singh wrote: > Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >> Balbir Singh wrote: > >> Resource counter accounts for arbitrary resource. Memory pressure >> and memory reclamation both only make sense in case we're dealing >> with memory controller. Please, remove this comment or move it to >> memcontrol.c. >> > > Yes, they always have. The concept of soft limits, hard limits, guarantees > applies to all resources. Why do you say they apply only to memory controller? I I said that *memory pressure and memory reclamation*, not the soft limits in general, applies to memory controller only :) > can change the comment to make the definition generic for all resources. > > -- 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