Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Aug 2000 19:32:45 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [patch?] Re: Do ramdisk exec's map direct to buffer cache? |
| |
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/
| |