From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265354AbUGZNov (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:44:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265119AbUGZNov (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:44:51 -0400 Received: from grendel.digitalservice.pl ([217.67.200.140]:26564 "HELO mail.digitalservice.pl") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265359AbUGZNnc (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:43:32 -0400 From: "R. J. Wysocki" Organization: SiSK To: Nick Piggin , Con Kolivas Subject: Re: Autotune swappiness01 Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:53:09 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <4104E863.6070102@kolivas.org> <4104EF5F.9070405@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <4104EF5F.9070405@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200407261553.09594.rjwysocki@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 26 of July 2004 13:47, Nick Piggin wrote: > 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 ;) Well, what I hate about various computer programs is that they seem to assume to know what I (the USER) want and they don't let me do anything else that they "know" what I should/would do. ;-) > 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). Can you please tell me why you think that the least tunable implementation should be the best/most desirable one? I always prefer the most tunable implementations which is quite opposite to what you have said, but this is my personal opinion, of course. Yours, rjw -- Rafael J. Wysocki [tel. (+48) 605 053 693] ---------------------------- For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard P. Feynman