On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:36:04PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 02:33:48PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > If you have a better idea for memory management, I'd
> > > like to hear it ;)
> >
> > You know 2.4.0-test1-ac22-class++ beaten 2.4.0-test1-ac22-riel++
> > under low memory scenario, right?
>
> You know that the -ac* VM code was very different from the
> VM code that has been submitted recently, right? ;)
>
> The VM code in the -ac* kernels concentrated on things like
> deferred swapout, while the real issues like multi-queue VM
> weren't present yet.
>
> The newer VM patches leave out the deferred swapout and other
> issues, and instead keep all the "low-level" code equivalent
> to the old shrink_mmap(), with the only difference being the
> way we /select/ which pages undergo the different procedures.
>
> Please take a look at the new VM before saying anything about
> it...
Rik could you tell me where I said anything about the new VM in test9?
I _very_ much hope the 2.4.0-test9-pre2 VM is much better than
2.4.0-test1-ac22-class++ otherwise it can't explain why your code is been
integrated and my classzone thing is only been complained by you and Linus.
I asked you if you known that ac22-class++ was faster under low mem because
from your previous question ended with the smile you looked to assume that
nobody can do anything better than the current VM. If my assumption was wrong I
apolgise, however you should explain me the reason of the smile then.
If my assumption was right, I given you the proof you shouldn't assume that.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 21:00:15 EST