From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:20:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:20:43 -0400 Received: from ns.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.10]:20744 "HELO heather.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:20:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:20:22 +0200 From: Stephan von Krawczynski To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ast@domdv.de Subject: Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9 Message-Id: <20010917192022.313ddd5f.skraw@ithnet.com> In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <20010917183433.5b992e74.skraw@ithnet.com> Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.6.2 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote: > "Looks cleaner" is very important for me for maintenance reasons - having > behaviour that you cannot explain tends to result in more and more ad-hoc > hacks over time, and it just tends to get worse and worse. Agreed. > However, at the same time I'd really like to hear about improved > behaviour, not just "feels the same". And certainly not "(maybe even > worse.." Hm, sorry for that. But that's what I see. Maybe the problem is now on a different field. > The problematic part is that I suspect that _because_ there's a lot of > inactive pages, the VM layer won't even try to age the active ones. > Which will result in the inactive pages being re-circulated reasonably > quickly.. Do you think this re-circulation is _fast_ in current code? Maybe performance loss comes from this point? BTW: I tried Andrea's brand new patch and have to admit it has a _big_ performance gain, though I understand you dislike the design very much. Regards, Stephan