From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265487AbUGZVaJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:30:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265932AbUGZVaJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:30:09 -0400 Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.85]:55305 "EHLO anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265487AbUGZV36 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:29:58 -0400 Message-ID: <410577D4.1010800@zero10.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:29:56 +0100 From: DaMouse User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6+ (Windows/20040706) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Autotune swappiness01 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 Perhaps the answer is a CONFIG_USERCONFIG or similar like in the car scenario, those who like to take tools with them to fiddle and those who just like to drive. -DaMouse Previous Messages: On Monday 26 of July 2004 20:45, Adam Kropelin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:53:09PM +0200, R. J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday 26 of July 2004 13:47, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > Nick Piggin wrote: > > > >> Con Kolivas wrote: > > > >>> In my ideal, nonsensical, impossible to obtain world we have an > > > >>> autoregulating operating system that doesn't need any knobs. > > > >> > > > >> Some thinks are fundamental tradeoffs that can't be autotuned. > > > >> > > > >> Latency vs throughput comes up in a lot of places, eg. timeslices. > > > >> > > > >> Maximum throughput via effective use of swap, versus swapping as > > > >> a last resort may be another. > > > > > > > > As I said... it was ideal, nonsensical, and impossible. Doesn't sound > > > > like you're arguing with me. > > > > > > No, you're right. My ideal operating system knows what the user > > > wants too ;) > > > > Well, what I hate about various computer programs is that they seem to > > assume to know what I (the USER) want and they don't let me do anything > > else that they "know" what I should/would do. ;-) > > > > > Most of the time though, you are right. The quality/desirability of an > > > implementation will be inversely proportional to the number of knobs > > > sticking out of it (with bonus points for those that are meaningful to > > > 2 people on the planet). > > > > Can you please tell me why you think that the least tunable > > implementation should be the best/most desirable one? I always prefer > > the most tunable implementations which is quite opposite to what you have > > said, but this is my personal opinion, of course. > > The implementation with the least *need* for tuning is the most > desirable. I, for one, don't care if there are a dozen knobs as long as > 99% of users don't have to touch them. But if common usage scenarios > require turning knobs to get reasonable performance, the algorithm is > lacking. I agree in 100%. > Thanks to fuel injection and engine management I can drive from LA to > Denver and not need to tweak my carburator half way up the Rockies. > I've given up some chances for tuning, but overall I'm better off. If > you want to stick a trimpot or ten out the side of the engine management > computer so true gearheads can tweak another couple HP or MPG out of the > engine, great. But don't expect me to fiddle with it every time driving > conditions change; it's not an excuse to make the management algorithms > inadequate for common driving patterns. I didn't mean that. Actually, I was trying to say that an additional "knob" (or "knobs") might be useful in determining the "common settings" acceptable for the 99% of users. Then, it could be "hidden" (which I wouldn't do, but well ...). Yours, rjw