Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: VM | From | (bill davidsen) | Date | Tue, 23 Oct 2001 20:04:18 GMT |
| |
In article <20011023002702.A2446@localhost>, Patrick McFarland <unknown@panax.com> wrote: | Slightly off topic, but I kinda find it cool that this thread is still going, seeing as I | started it on the 15th. =) | | Anyhow, have we decided that 2.5 should have the ac-vm or the linus-vm?
I hope not, the bug-fix and corner case competition is doing good thing for VM in both directions. That's healthy.
What I would like to see is VM moved to a module so you could have either, or any of several competing designs which would be bound to emerge once there's a neat interface and you can write to that instead of trying to understand and hack all the stuff needed now. The effort is high and the chance for problems high as well right now, in other words a high ratio of implementation to method expertise.
I also would love to see the dispatcher moved to a module, so people can easily play with ideas like the idle process, integrating VM and dispatch operation at high memory load, etc.
Right now you not only need to understand the topic, but the implementation. The implementation could be made easier with a clean interface and an easy way to load changes for test without compiling a kernel.
<BOOM> Yes, I'm still beating the drum for those modules. </BOOM>
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> His first management concern is not solving the problem, but covering his ass. If he lived in the middle ages he'd wear his codpiece backward. - 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/
| |