Re: 2.4.18pre4aa1

David Weinehall
2002-01-25T05:18:38Z

On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 02:57:02AM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 rwhron@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > > workloads, I'm not sure I want to make the system more
> > > unfair just to better accomodate dbench ;)
> >
> > I'm wondering if rmap is a little too aggressive on
> > read-ahead, and if that has a negative impact on
> > a complex workload.
>
> I haven't changed the readahead code one bit compared
> to 2.4 mainline, but I'm wondering the same.
>
> Fixing readahead window sizing has been on my TODO list
> for quite a while already.

One thing that struck me about this; doesn't both the rmap-patches and
the aa-patches contain other changes than merely changes to the VM? If
so, couldn't these changes tip the result in an unfair direction?! After
all, what we want is a VM-to-VM shoot-out, not a VM-to-VM+whatever
shoot-out. After all, one would assume that the non VM-related changes
would be merged to the kernel no matter what VM is used, right?

Then again, maybe I just ate the blue pill and returned to a world of
illusions not knowing what's best for me.

Regards: David Weinehall
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </