From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>,
"M. Edward Borasky" <znmeb@aracnet.com>,
"Linux-Kernel@Vger. " "Kernel. Org"
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4
Date: 20 Oct 2001 16:03:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1003608210.862.23.camel@phantasy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20011020125629.A31863@mikef-linux.matchmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <HBEHIIBBKKNOBLMPKCBBKEOIDOAA.znmeb@aracnet.com> <20011020003812Z16243-4005+727@humbolt.nl.linux.org> <1003539951.939.3.camel@phantasy> <20011020125629.A31863@mikef-linux.matchmail.com>
On Sat, 2001-10-20 at 15:56, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 09:05:29PM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
>
> > Agreed. They also encourage people to write algorithms that are
> > suboptimal, but perform OK with proper tuning. This, imho, is the
> > biggest argument against.
>
> How does this differ when the tuning is hard coded?
>
> There are always cases where the algo will fall over.
>
> One thing I can say in favor of hard coded tuning is that it encourages the
> cases where it does fall over to be reported, and possibly fixed.
Because if the tunings are hard coded, developers will be encouraged to
make sure those tunings serve at least some common case, if not most
cases. If they are tunable, you get "the default tuning works for me.
play with the proc settings to get it right...".
I don't agree with that. Code it right. If it takes a different tuning
for every case, then ditch the algorithm and let's find one that works
right. Kind of like the point you just mentioned...
Robert Love
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-10-20 20:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-13 17:02 Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4 Patrick McFarland
2001-10-13 17:16 ` Alan Cox
2001-10-13 18:06 ` M. Edward Borasky
2001-10-13 18:17 ` Patrick McFarland
2001-10-13 18:29 ` Rik van Riel
2001-10-13 18:42 ` Patrick McFarland
2001-10-13 18:53 ` Patrick McFarland
2001-10-13 18:58 ` Rik van Riel
2001-10-13 19:04 ` Patrick McFarland
2001-10-13 19:10 ` Rik van Riel
2001-10-13 19:28 ` Wilson
2001-10-13 20:12 ` [solid]
2001-10-13 20:21 ` Patrick McFarland
2001-10-13 19:17 ` Rik van Riel
2001-10-13 18:37 ` M. Edward Borasky
2001-10-20 0:38 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-10-20 1:05 ` Robert Love
2001-10-20 19:56 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-10-20 20:03 ` Robert Love [this message]
2001-10-13 17:48 ` Mark Hahn
2001-10-13 21:29 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-10-13 21:47 ` Mark Hahn
[not found] <20011013132327.F249@localhost>
[not found] ` <E15sSey-0003Jf-00@the-village.bc.nu>
2001-10-13 17:33 ` Patrick McFarland
[not found] ` <E15sSti-0003ME-00@the-village.bc.nu>
2001-10-13 17:49 ` Patrick McFarland
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1003608210.862.23.camel@phantasy \
--to=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mfedyk@matchmail.com \
--cc=phillips@bonn-fries.net \
--cc=znmeb@aracnet.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox