Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:32:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:32:48 -0500 Received: from falcon.etf.bg.ac.yu ([147.91.8.233]:42892 "EHLO falcon.etf.bg.ac.yu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 23:32:40 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 05:30:33 +0100 (CET) From: Bosko Radivojevic To: Erik Mouw cc: Andrea Arcangeli , , Rik van Riel Subject: Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM In-Reply-To: <20020117000758.GL10175@arthur.ubicom.tudelft.nl> Message-ID: 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 Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Erik Mouw wrote: > Some time ago Linus made the important observation that we shouldn't > tune the scheduler for SMP systems simply because 99.9% of the systems > in the world running linux have a single CPU. IMHO an equally well > observation would be that we shouldn't tune the VM for the 0.1% of the > systems in this world that run large DMBSes. The 99.9% majority is much > more important. There is a way to fulfill both needs. If my systems are part of that 0.1%, I have to disagree with you. :) There is no way to make one good VM for all possible situations. But, you can tune/make one VM to work great on large DBMS (e.g.) and tune/make another one to work great on ordinary desktop systems (playing mp3s & co). So, add different VMs as kernel-config options. The 'default' one should be VM for 99.9% users. Everybody happy? :) Greetings - 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/