From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:46:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:46:22 -0400 Received: from lightning.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.1]:42509 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:46:14 -0400 Subject: Re: page_launder() on 2.4.9/10 issue To: jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu (Jan Harkes) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 19:49:47 +0100 (BST) Cc: marcelo@conectiva.com.br (Marcelo Tosatti), riel@conectiva.com.br (Rik van Riel), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20010904135427.A30503@cs.cmu.edu> from "Jan Harkes" at Sep 04, 2001 01:54:27 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] 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 > Now for the past _9_ stable kernel releases, page aging hasn't worked > at all!! Nobody seems to even have bothered to check. I send in a patch > and you basically answer with "Ohh, but we know about that one. Just > apply patch wizzbangfoo#105 which basically does everything differently". Maybe you should take issue with the people applying random patches, missing important ones and mixing and matching incompatible ideas in the main tree ? The VM tuning in the -ac tree is a lot more reliable for most loads (its certainly not perfect) and that is because the changes have been done and tested one at a time as they are merged. Real engineering process is the only way to get this sort of thing working well. Alan