Re: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 13 2001 - 12:16:00 EST

Next message: David Schwartz: "Re: High Rate of Sockets -> No buffer space availible errors"
Previous message: Patrick McFarland: "Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4"
In reply to: Patrick McFarland: "Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4"
Next in thread: M. Edward Borasky: "RE: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4"
Reply: M. Edward Borasky: "RE: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> Now, the great kernel hacker, ac, said that 2.2 is better at vm in low memo=
> ry situations than 2.4 is. Why is this? Why hasnt someone fixed the 2.4 cod=
> e?

Actually they have on thw whole. However VM tuning is a hard problem
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: David Schwartz: "Re: High Rate of Sockets -> No buffer space availible errors"
Previous message: Patrick McFarland: "Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4"
In reply to: Patrick McFarland: "Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4"
Next in thread: M. Edward Borasky: "RE: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4"
Reply: M. Edward Borasky: "RE: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:49 EST