From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:00:18 -0800 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: load control demotion/promotion policy Message-ID: <20031222070018.GE11655@holomorphy.com> References: <20031221235541.GA22896@k3.hellgate.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031221235541.GA22896@k3.hellgate.ch> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: bcrl@kvack.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:33:34 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: >> I've got an idea for a load control / memory scheduling >> policy that is inspired by the following requirements >> and data points: On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 12:55:42AM +0100, Roger Luethi wrote: > It is my understanding that wli is interested in load control because > he knows this Russian guy who puts an insane load on his box. Do you > have friends in Russia as well? Isn't there _anybody_ interested in > the fact that 2.6 performance completely breaks down under a light > overload where 2.4 doesn't and where load control would be more of a > problem than a solution? Heck, I even showed that you don't have to give > up physical scanning to get most of the pageout performance back! Oh, > and btw: Did I overlook this problem on akpm's should/must fix lists, > or is it missing for a reason? I have posted to this thread several times and I've not gotten the replies back from the mailing list, but I have received several subsequent replies. What's going on here? -- 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