Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:45:32 +0100 | From | Stephan von Krawczynski <> | Subject | Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable |
| |
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 00:50:54 +0000 (GMT) Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > all of it? You will not be far away in the end from the 'round 4000 I > > already stated in earlier post. > > There are very few places you need to touch to get a massive benefit. Most > of the kernel already behaves extremely well.
Just a short question: the last (add-on) patch to mini-ll I saw on the list patches: drivers/net/3c59x.c drivers/net/8139too.c drivers/net/eepro100.c
Unfortunately me have neither of those. This would mean I cannot benefit from _these_ patches, but instead would need _others_ (like tulip or name-one-of-the-rest-of-the-drivers) to see _some_ effect you tell me I _should_ see (I currently see _none_). How do you argue then against the statement: we need patches for /drivers/net/*.c ?? I do not expect 3c59x.c to be particularly bad in comparison to tulip/*.c or lets say via-rhine.c, do you?
> > So I understand you agree somehow with me in the answer to "what idea > > is really better?"... > > Do you want a clean simple solution or complex elegance ? For 2.4 I definitely> favour clean and simple. For 2.5 its an open debate
Hm, obviously the ll-patches look simple, but their pure required number makes me think they are as well stupid as simple. This whole story looks like making an old mac do real multitasking, just spread around scheduling points throughout the code ... This is like drilling for water on top of the mountain. I want the water too, but I state there must be a nice valley somewhere around ...
Regards, Stephan - 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/
| |