Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:38:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:38:39 -0500 Received: from [62.245.135.174] ([62.245.135.174]:24508 "EHLO mail.teraport.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 06:38:22 -0500 Message-ID: <3C4414A7.8A3FF2FE@TeraPort.de> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:38:15 +0100 From: Martin Knoblauch Reply-To: m.knoblauch@TeraPort.de Organization: TeraPort GmbH X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.17 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" CC: russ@elegant-software.com Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on lotus/Teraport/de(Release 5.0.7 |March 21, 2001) at 01/15/2002 12:38:15 PM, Serialize by Router on lotus/Teraport/de(Release 5.0.7 |March 21, 2001) at 01/15/2002 12:38:22 PM, Serialize complete at 01/15/2002 12:38:22 PM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable > > > This is getting silly ... feeback like "ll is better than PK", "feels > smooth", "is reponsive", "my kernel > compile is faster than yours", etc. is not getting us any closer to the > "how" of making a better kernel. > > What's the goal? How should SMP and NUMA behave? How is success measured? > > It would be good to be very clear on the ultimate purpose before making > radical changes. All of > these changes are dancing around some vague concept of > reponsiveness...so define it! > OK, just my set of goals/requirements for a usable/production kernel: - working VM under a broad set of loads. Working means fair/fitting treatment of cache vs. process memory, no OOM killing processes when there is plenty memory in "free+buffer+cache", no unnecessary swapping out of processes if there is plenty of "free+buffer+cache" memory. - good/great interactive feel. This means no loss of interactivity due to cache vs. process memory issues. This means no loss of interactivity due to heavy IO. - Good enough worst case latency for "amateur" audio/DVD playback. What *I* do not need it "hard real-time" with 101% guaranteed response times. What *I* want is to see my goals in the stock kernel, without needing to apply a weird set of patches :-) How we get there I do not care to much. If -aa can solve the VM problems, fine. If rmap solves them, great. Just bring a working, maintainable solution in. Ditto for LL vs. preempt. Martin -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Martin Knoblauch | email: Martin.Knoblauch@TeraPort.de TeraPort GmbH | Phone: +49-89-510857-309 C+ITS | Fax: +49-89-510857-111 http://www.teraport.de | Mobile: +49-170-4904759 - 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/