Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:46:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:45:41 -0500 Received: from brutus.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.146]:16635 "EHLO brutus.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:45:32 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:46:08 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Mike Galbraith cc: linux-kernel , Marcelo Tosatti , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [patch][rfc][rft] vm throughput 2.4.2-ac4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Attempting to avoid doing I/O has been harmful to throughput here > ever since the queueing/elevator woes were fixed. Ever since then, > tossing attempts at avoidance has improved throughput markedly. > > IMHO, any patch which claims to improve throughput via code deletion > should be worth a little eyeball time.. and maybe even a test run ;-) > > Comments welcome. Before even thinking about testing this thing, I'd like to see some (detailed?) explanation from you why exactly you think the changes in this patch are good and how + why they work. IMHO it would be good to not apply ANY code to the stable kernel tree unless we understand what it does and what the author meant the code to do... regards, Rik -- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.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/