![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Dave Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:47:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Frankly, I find it very depressing that the kernel defaults matter. These > > things are trivially tunable and you'd think that after all these years, > > distro initscripts would be establishing the settings, based upon expected > > workload, amount of memory, number and bandwidth of attached devices, etc. > > "This is hard, lets make it someone else's problem" shouldn't ever be the > answer, especially if the end result is that we become even more > dependant on bits of userspace running before the system becomes useful. > > > Heck, there should even be userspace daemons which observe ongoing system > > behaviour and which adaptively tune these things to the most appropriate > > level. > > > > But nope, nothing. > > See the 'libtune' crack that people have been trying to get distros to > adopt for a long time. > If we need some form of adaptive behaviour, the kernel needs to be > doing this monitoring/adapting, not some userspace daemon that may > not get scheduled before its too late. > I'm wondering whether AKT I proposed a couple of months ago wouldn't be more appropriate (provided that we find the perfect heuristics to tune the dirty_ratio ;-) ) see thread http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/16/16 Regards, Nadia - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-06-21 12:35 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||