Re: VM and classzone

From: Craig Kulesa (ckulesa@loke.as.arizona.edu)
Date: Sat May 20 2000 - 14:58:39 EDT

  • Next message: George Anzinger: "Re: [PATCH] sched_yield() flawed since 2.2.13?"

    On Sat, 20 May 2000 Carlo Wood wrote:

    > In order to come to a solution, I'd like to suggest the
    > following:
    >
    > - - Linus makes a short list of what he thinks are the
    > pros and cons of Andreas design, so it is more clear

    Classzone was presented and discussed extensively on the linux-mm list at
    the end of April. Start here, follow the thread onwards:

            http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-mm/2000-04/msg00172.html

    > of benchmark tests if proposed by all parties that will
    > produce *numbers* - so we will be able to actually see
    > the impact of Andreas patch (with and without).

    I remember seeing a post or two like that here. But it seems that the
    _real_ issues w/ classzone are the basic tenets of its fundamental
    design. I actually see nice performance with classzone on generic PC's,
    but there are clearly several ways to reach that goal. Additionally, the
    aim is to have a _flexible_ VM system that will handle a wide variety of
    memory topologies (NUMA, etc...).

    Craig Kulesa

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 20 2000 - 15:00:54 EDT