On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 02:33:48PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > If you have a better idea for memory management, I'd
> > like to hear it ;)
>
> You know 2.4.0-test1-ac22-class++ beaten 2.4.0-test1-ac22-riel++
> under low memory scenario, right?
You know that the -ac* VM code was very different from the
VM code that has been submitted recently, right? ;)
The VM code in the -ac* kernels concentrated on things like
deferred swapout, while the real issues like multi-queue VM
weren't present yet.
The newer VM patches leave out the deferred swapout and other
issues, and instead keep all the "low-level" code equivalent
to the old shrink_mmap(), with the only difference being the
way we /select/ which pages undergo the different procedures.
Please take a look at the new VM before saying anything about
it...
> The only thing it can be a problem for an alternate VM if there
> would be user<->kernel API differences realted to the very
> internal of the memory management so if possible I'd like if
> that could be avoided.
Sure, lets get rid of /proc/meminfo ;)
But serious, if /proc/meminfo isn't there to give information
about the internal memory use of the system, why do we have
it? I don't see /proc/meminfo doing anything else than that...
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.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 21:00:15 EST