Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Jan 2002 06:18:01 +0100 | From | David Weinehall <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.18pre4aa1 |
| |
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 02:57:02AM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 rwhron@earthlink.net wrote: > > > > workloads, I'm not sure I want to make the system more > > > unfair just to better accomodate dbench ;) > > > > I'm wondering if rmap is a little too aggressive on > > read-ahead, and if that has a negative impact on > > a complex workload. > > I haven't changed the readahead code one bit compared > to 2.4 mainline, but I'm wondering the same. > > Fixing readahead window sizing has been on my TODO list > for quite a while already.
One thing that struck me about this; doesn't both the rmap-patches and the aa-patches contain other changes than merely changes to the VM? If so, couldn't these changes tip the result in an unfair direction?! After all, what we want is a VM-to-VM shoot-out, not a VM-to-VM+whatever shoot-out. After all, one would assume that the non VM-related changes would be merged to the kernel no matter what VM is used, right?
Then again, maybe I just ate the blue pill and returned to a world of illusions not knowing what's best for me.
Regards: David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |