On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> It can be fixed in kernel too, it's just that the effort would be poorly
> spent at this point. This is in roughly the same category as process-level
> paging policy: yes, if it's implemented properly the VM appears to work
> better and users will post nice things on lkml about it, but it's a red
> herring. Such adjustments are better left for later in the cycle, when
> the smoke has cleared from the basic merge, and benchmarks should focus
> narrowly on behaviour that is actually affected by the change in scanning
> strategy.
I don't agree with this, for a very simple reason.
The current rmap patch was created in order to change the
VM behaviour as little as possible and ONLY provide an
infrastructure. Benchmarking a completely untuned thing
that was built to not change anything is bound to give
meaningless results.
I say we _use_ the infrastructure that akpm is trying to
get merged now in order to implement something useful.
Rik
-- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 22:00:24 EST