Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:36:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:36:33 -0400 Received: from www.fibrespeed.net ([216.168.105.33]:25327 "HELO mail.fibrespeed.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:36:23 -0400 Message-ID: <3BD420ED.4090508@fibrespeed.net> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:36:45 -0400 From: "Michael T. Babcock" Organization: CyTech Computers User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20010913 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linux Kernel Subject: Re: VM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I've not reached any final conclusions on the VM - there are things that > Rik's VM shows up that look like the VM algorithm is right but it > triggers other stuff, and there are a couple of hackish bits left in still. I have never done this comparison myself, but I was wondering how ugly it would be if stable versions of Andrea's and Rik's VMs were both available in your/Linus' kernel as compile-time options. Assuming that each provides better performance under certain conditions, wouldn't being able to choose a VM make sense, if they don't step on the rest of the kernel too much ... -- Michael T. Babcock http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock - 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/