Re: [PATCH] Recent VM fiasco - fixed

From: Rik van Riel (
Date: Mon May 08 2000 - 13:46:09 EST

On 8 May 2000, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> Rik van Riel <> writes:
> > On 8 May 2000, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
> >
> > > BTW, this patch mostly *removes* cruft recently added, and
> > > returns to the known state of operation.
> >
> > Which doesn't work.
> >
> > Think of a 1GB machine which has a 16MB DMA zone,
> > a 950MB normal zone and a very small HIGHMEM zone.
> >
> > With the old VM code the HIGHMEM zone would be
> > swapping like mad while the other two zones are
> > idle.
> >
> > It's Not That Kind Of Party(tm)
> OK, I see now what you have in mind, and I'll try to test it when I
> get home (yes, late worker... my only connection to the Net :))
> If only I could buy 1GB to test in the real setup. ;)
> But still, optimizing for 1GB, while at the same time completely
> killing performances even *usability* for the 99% of users doesn't
> look like a good solution, does it?

20MB and 24MB machines will be in the same situation, if
that's of any help to you ;)

> But after few hours spent dealing with the horrible VM that is
> in the pre6, I'm not scared anymore. And I think that solution
> to all our problems with zone balancing must be very simple.

It is. Linus is working on a conservative & simple solution
while I'm trying a bit more "far-out" code (active and inactive
list a'la BSD, etc...). We should have at least one good VM
subsystem within the next few weeks ;)



The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network
of people. That is its real strength.

Wanna talk about the kernel? / #kernelnewbies

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 15 2000 - 21:00:11 EST