From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 22:09:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mike Galbraith <mikeg@wen-online.de>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105181521400.5251-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105182153570.387-100000@mikeg.weiden.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
Cc: Ingo Oeser <ingo.oeser@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>

On Fri, 18 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Fri, 18 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
>
> > Rik: Would you take patches for such a tradeoff sysctl?
>
> "such a tradeoff" ?
>
> While this sounds reasonable, I have to point out that
> up to now nobody has described exactly WHAT tradeoff
> they'd like to make tunable and why...

While I'd love to have more control, I can't say I have a clear
picture of exactly how I'd like those knobs to look.  I always
start out trying to get it to seek the right behavior.. :) and
end up fighting so many different fires I get lost in the smoke.

	-Mike

--
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/