On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Stoffel wrote: > > I know this is a pedantic comment, but why the heck is it called such > > a generic term as "Memory Controller" which doesn't give any > > indication of what it does. > > > > Shouldn't it be something like "Memory Quota Controller", or "Memory > > Limits Controller"? > > > > It's called the memory controller since it controls the amount of memory > that a > user can allocate (via limits). The generic term for any resource manager > plugged into cgroups is a controller. If you look through some of the > references > in the document, we've listed our plans to support other categories of > memory as > well. Hence it's called a memory controller
While logical, the term is too generic. Memory [Allocation] Governor might be closer. Memory Quota Controller actually matches the already established terminology (quotas). Regardless, Andi's point remains: At minimum, the kconfig text needs to be clear for distributors and end-users as to why they'd want to enable this, or what reasons would cause them to not enable it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
