From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 25 May 2001 19:16:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 25 May 2001 19:16:18 -0400 Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:5892 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 25 May 2001 19:16:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [with-PATCH-really] highmem deadlock removal, balancing & cleanup To: riel@conectiva.com.br (Rik van Riel) Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 00:13:13 +0100 (BST) Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: from "Rik van Riel" at May 25, 2001 07:20:20 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Fri, 25 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, 25 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > > > OK, shoot me. Here it is again, this time _with_ patch... > > > > I'm not going to apply this as long as it plays experimental games with > > "shrink_icache()" and friends. I haven't seen anybody comment on the > > performance on this, > > Yeah, I guess the way Linux 2.2 balances things is way too > experimental ;) Compared to the 2.0 performance - yes. 2.0 is faster than 2.2 is twice the speed of 2.4 starting X and the session apps on my MediaGX box with 64Mb But Linus is right I think - VM changes often prove 'interesting'. Test it in -ac , gets some figures for real world use then plan further