From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935757AbXGXJjy (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:39:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934938AbXGXJja (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:39:30 -0400 Received: from posthamster.phnxsoft.com ([195.227.45.4]:1471 "EHLO posthamster.phnxsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935327AbXGXJj3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:39:29 -0400 Message-ID: <46A5C8B0.5060401@imap.cc> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:38:56 +0200 From: Tilman Schmidt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de-AT; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070509 SeaMonkey/1.1.2 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ray Lee CC: Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , Jesper Juhl , ck list , Ingo Molnar , Paul Jackson , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 References: <20070710013152.ef2cd200.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200707102015.44004.kernel@kolivas.org> <9a8748490707231608h453eefffx68b9c391897aba70@mail.gmail.com> <46A57068.3070701@yahoo.com.au> <2c0942db0707232153j3670ef31kae3907dff1a24cb7@mail.gmail.com> <20070723221846.d2744f42.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <2c0942db0707232301o5ab428bdrd1bc831cacf806c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2c0942db0707232301o5ab428bdrd1bc831cacf806c@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig7D20BFFEDF91EB3B221A9A96" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig7D20BFFEDF91EB3B221A9A96 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ray Lee schrieb: > I spend a lot of time each day watching my computer fault my > workingset back in when I switch contexts. I'd rather I didn't have to > do that. Unfortunately, that's a pretty subjective problem report. For > whatever it's worth, we have pretty subjective solution reports > pointing to swap prefetch as providing a fix for them. Add me. > My concern is that a subjective problem report may not be good enough. That's my impression too, seeing the insistence on numbers. > So, what do I measure to make this an objective problem report? That seems to be the crux of the matter: how to measure subjective usability issues (aka user experience) when simple reports along the lines of "A is much better than B for everyday work" are not enough. The same problem already impaired the "fair scheduler" discussion. It would really help to have a clear direction there. --=20 Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@imap.cc Bonn, Germany Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits. Unge=C3=B6ffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe R=C3=BCckseite) --------------enig7D20BFFEDF91EB3B221A9A96 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGpciwMdB4Whm86/kRApXjAJ9DH12VDcvttfRPtDCRrEDs0emn+wCfZgl1 pEWhTqYquIM2Hb/O7HE1gnY= =yI2D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig7D20BFFEDF91EB3B221A9A96--