From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 15:19:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: RFC: design for new VM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu List-ID: [ Ok, we agree on the basics ] On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > > What I fail to see is why this would be preferable to a code > base where all the different pages are neatly separated and > we don't have N+1 functions that are all scanning the same > list, special-casing out each other's pages and searching > the list for their own special pages... I disagree just with the "all improved, radically new, 50% more for the same price" ad-campaign I've seen. I don't like the fact that you said that you don't want to worry about 2.4.x because you don't think it can be fixed it as it stands. I think that's a cop-out and dishonest. I think I've explained why. I could fully imagine doing even multi-lists in 2.4.x. I think performance bugs are secondary to stability bugs, but hey, if the patch is clean and straightforward and fixes a performance bug, I would not hesitate to apply it. It may be that going to multi-lists actually is easier just because of some thins being more explicit. Fine. But stop the ad-campaign. We get too many biased ads for presidents-to-be already, no need to take that approach to technical issues. We need to fix the VM balancing, we don't need to sell it to people with buzz-words. Linus -- 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/