Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 13:02:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 13:02:20 -0400 Received: from grip.panax.com ([63.163.40.2]:1031 "EHLO panax.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 13:02:00 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 13:02:28 -0400 From: Patrick McFarland To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4 Message-ID: <20011013130228.E249@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TakKZr9L6Hm6aLOc" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22i X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.12 i586 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net/ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --TakKZr9L6Hm6aLOc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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? --=20 Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || unknown@panax.com --TakKZr9L6Hm6aLOc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE7yHOj8Gvouk7G1cURAhsjAKCTUvnaTVaIY+Ki4lbp4JkqEZk4EQCeNoRK Do4X+MYWEfVE4sI5iuz7ALI= =o9hz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TakKZr9L6Hm6aLOc-- - 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/