Messages in this thread | | | From | "R. J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: Autotune swappiness01 | Date | Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:53:09 +0200 |
| |
On Monday 26 of July 2004 13:47, Nick Piggin wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > > Nick Piggin wrote: > >> Con Kolivas wrote: > >>> In my ideal, nonsensical, impossible to obtain world we have an > >>> autoregulating operating system that doesn't need any knobs. > >> > >> Some thinks are fundamental tradeoffs that can't be autotuned. > >> > >> Latency vs throughput comes up in a lot of places, eg. timeslices. > >> > >> Maximum throughput via effective use of swap, versus swapping as > >> a last resort may be another. > > > > As I said... it was ideal, nonsensical, and impossible. Doesn't sound > > like you're arguing with me. > > No, you're right. My ideal operating system knows what the user > wants too ;)
Well, what I hate about various computer programs is that they seem to assume to know what I (the USER) want and they don't let me do anything else that they "know" what I should/would do. ;-)
> Most of the time though, you are right. The quality/desirability of an > implementation will be inversely proportional to the number of knobs > sticking out of it (with bonus points for those that are meaningful to > 2 people on the planet).
Can you please tell me why you think that the least tunable implementation should be the best/most desirable one? I always prefer the most tunable implementations which is quite opposite to what you have said, but this is my personal opinion, of course.
Yours, rjw
-- Rafael J. Wysocki [tel. (+48) 605 053 693] ---------------------------- For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard P. Feynman - 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/
| |