Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:09:04 -0500 (EST) | From | John Alvord <> | Subject | Re: VM20 behavior on a 486DX/66Mhz with 16mb of RAM |
| |
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi, > > On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:22:10 +0100 (CET), Andrea Arcangeli > <andrea@e-mind.com> said: > > > Setting an high limit for the cache when we are low memory is easy doable. > > Comments from other mm guys? > > Horrible --- smells like the old problem of "oh, our VM is hopeless at > tuning performance itself, so let's rely on magic numbers to constrain > it to reasonable performance". I'd much much much much rather see a VM > which manages to work well without having to be constrained by tricks > like that (although by all means supply extra boundary limits for use in > special cases: just don't enable them on a default system). > We have at least one other case where a memory algorithm needed to be tuned for smaller memory. It was the "target free space per cent" which had to be larger for small memory machines. There could be a similiar effect in cache handling. No problem on larger machines, but a big problem on small memory machines.
John Alvord
Music, Management, Poetry and more... http://www.candlelist.org/kuilema
Cheap CDs @ http://www.cruzio.com/~billpeet/MusicByCandlelight
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |