From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:07:30 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: How to fix the total size of buffer caches in 2.4.5? Message-ID: <20030612040730.GX15692@holomorphy.com> References: <20030611162224.GR15692@holomorphy.com> <20030611165017.GS15692@holomorphy.com> <20030611233626.A30212@algol.cs.amherst.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030611233626.A30212@algol.cs.amherst.edu> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Scott F. H. Kaplan" Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:36:26PM -0400, Scott F. H. Kaplan wrote: > On this point, I disagree. Given Shansi's goal of ``doing a research > project'', choosing a stable, documented kernel may be a better idea > than a developmental kernel. I may misinterpret the aim of this work, > but based on the description (comparing a new page replacement > algorithm against LRU), it seems unlikely that the immediate goal is > to implement ``major design changes'' that can be aborbed into a > codebase. It seems that the intention is simply to use Linux as an > experimental platform to gather results for page replacment policy > comparisons. This was in no small part a reaction to the backportmania and proliferation of grossly inappropriate patches against the stable series of the past several years. IMHO, it is a justified one. If the goals are truly limited to using 2.4.x as a pure research vehicle, I say there are no holds barred. But experience is the mother of pessimism, and I'd rather keep it on the pill than see another litter of 2.4.x-based core subsystem rewrites or "dev trees" hatched. -- wli -- 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-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org