Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:11:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:11:30 -0400 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:5394 "HELO netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:11:18 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:11:30 -0200 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Luigi Genoni Cc: Anuradha Ratnaweera , Linus Torvalds , Subject: Re: VM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org 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, 16 Oct 2001, Luigi Genoni wrote: > The reason is the aa VM is more predictable, but rik's one actually > seems to be smarter under very very stressed situations. This is a different approach to the situation. Most of the time in the early 2.4 kernels we were much too busy to stop machines from crashing to care about performance. Only in more recent -ac kernels have I actually had time to look at performance and it seems to be relatively easy to get the VM to perform better. Andrea seems to have optimised his VM for performance under low to medium loads from the beginning ... but in Linux 2.2 we've seen how impossible it is to tune such a simplistic VM to not fall apart under very high loads, so I won't be going that way ;) regards, Rik -- DMCA, SSSCA, W3C? Who cares? http://thefreeworld.net/ (volunteers needed) 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/