Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:47:43 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: Autotune swappiness01 |
| |
Con Kolivas wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > >> Con Kolivas wrote:
>>> In my ideal, nonsensical, impossible to obtain world we have an >>> autoregulating operating system that doesn't need any knobs. >>> >> >> Some thinks are fundamental tradeoffs that can't be autotuned. >> >> Latency vs throughput comes up in a lot of places, eg. timeslices. >> >> Maximum throughput via effective use of swap, versus swapping as >> a last resort may be another. > > > As I said... it was ideal, nonsensical, and impossible. Doesn't sound > like you're arguing with me.
No, you're right. My ideal operating system knows what the user wants too ;)
Most of the time though, you are right. The quality/desirability of an implementation will be inversely proportional to the number of knobs sticking out of it (with bonus points for those that are meaningful to 2 people on the planet).
And yes, I think one knob should be enough for swapping behaviour too. - 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/
| |