From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:49:53 +0000 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Subject: Re: [PATCH] count for buffer IO in page_launder() Message-ID: <20010305104953.C1303@redhat.com> References: <20010302171020.W28854@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from marcelo@conectiva.com.br on Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 01:52:19AM -0300 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Alan Cox , Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi, On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 01:52:19AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > > > Have you done an performance testing on it? > > No. The code makes sense now. The development of the VM has been _full_ of well-intended, well-reasoned patches which failed to work properly for subtle reasons. I despair of us ever getting the 2.4 VM right as long as people think it's safe to submit VM patches without even basic performance testing. This isn't an experimental kernel. It's supposed to be a stable branch. Cheers, Stephen -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/