From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:42:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:42:01 -0400 Received: from humbolt.nl.linux.org ([131.211.28.48]:7186 "EHLO humbolt.nl.linux.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:41:49 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:49:16 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] Cc: Jan Harkes , Linus Torvalds , In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <20010917144206Z16393-2758+146@humbolt.nl.linux.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On September 17, 2001 02:41 pm, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On the other hand, Matt Dillon, the reigning champion of > > virtual memory managment, was quite firm in stating that we should > > drop the current virtually scanning strategy in favor of 100% > > physical scanning as BSD uses, relying on reverse mapping. > > > > http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-mm/2000-05/msg00419.html > > (Matt Dillon holds forth on the design of BSD's memory manager) > > His claims are backed up by FreeBSD's VM performance, > so I'm inclined to believe them. If you think you can > come up with something better, I'll believe you when > you show it... Rik, read the post, I'm supporting you. Please don't be so paranoid ;-) -- Daniel