On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > But with this "fix" you'd be adding another one in the
> > process.
> >
> > Admitted, it's only a performance bug, but I found it to
> > grind the machine to an absolute halt when doing IO
> > intensive stuff or running large programs...
>
> Performance bugs are definitely secondary.
Agreed. However, this one is so big that you probably don't
want to go that way ;)
> > Stephen Tweedie, Andrea Arcangeli and me have been looking
> > at this bug and others and have found there's pretty much
> > NO WAY to fix this without some bigger changes in the VM
> > code.
>
> Quite frankly, nobody has convinced me that there any way to fix VM
> balancing issues even _if_ people were to re-write the VM.
Nobody asks of you that you read all your email. However, I
believe that most of the ideas for the new VM were CCd to
you ;)
> The fact is that I suspect that it is fundamentally impossible
> to balance the VM so that everybody is always happy. People
> should realize that making more changes in the hope of finally
> reaching some elusive goal is not always worthwhile.
Indeed, "just making some changes" won't work. In order to get
a nicely self-balancing VM you need to do some major overhauls
which are definately 2.5 issues.
> Right now I want things to _work_. Big VM changes are for 2.5.x anyway.
>
> (See 2.2.x for how playing with the VM can cause untold
> stability woes. I think Alan learned that the hard way).
*nod*
regards,
Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 21:00:07 EST