Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S276814AbRJMRK3>; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 13:10:29 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S276547AbRJMRKV>; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 13:10:21 -0400
Received: from lightning.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.1]:35334 "EHLO
	the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S275449AbRJMRKJ>; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 13:10:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4
To: unknown@panax.com (Patrick McFarland)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 18:16:00 +0100 (BST)
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20011013130228.E249@localhost> from "Patrick McFarland" at Oct 13, 2001 01:02:28 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <E15sSOG-0003Fb-00@the-village.bc.nu>
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> 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/