Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9

Stephan von Krawczynski
2001-09-17T17:20:46Z

On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@transmeta.com> 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