From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 18:47:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 18:47:24 -0400 Received: from Huntington-Beach.Blue-Labs.org ([208.179.59.198]:63812 "EHLO Huntington-Beach.Blue-Labs.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 18:47:13 -0400 Message-ID: <3B6B29ED.2060808@blue-labs.org> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 18:47:09 -0400 From: David Ford User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2+) Gecko/20010725 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Ongoing 2.4 VM suckage In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I'd rather cut myself on the bleeding edge than have my extremities ripped off when my machine reaches critical mass :) It's seriously frustrating to have important volatile work on your desktop and have to sit back and wait two hours for "skill -9 " before you can use your machine again. -d Rik van Riel wrote: >On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, David Ford wrote: > >>If it is that badly broken, isn't that sufficient criteria to justify >>the patch? >> > >It's not just a patch. Fixing this problem will require >a major VM rewrite. A rewrite I really wasn't willing >to make for 2.4. > >I'll start writing the thing, but I won't be aiming at >getting it included in 2.4. I guess I could code it in >such a way to give a drop-in replacement for people >willing to cut themselves on the bleeding edge, though ;) >