On Mon, 7 May 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010507 10:59] wrote:

> > The next step is designing a load control system that
> > does work (not too hard) and having a reliable way of
> > detecting when exactly the system is thrashing (next
> > to impossible?).
> You might as well not bother unless you're actually going to provide
> code that fixes the issue.
> For some reason banning you from the irc channel hasn't convinced
> you that complaining without providing patches isn't the way we do
> things around here.

How about first analysing the problem in detail and
trying to fix it after we understand the problem ?

The current stage is that I've pretty much figured out
the problem and know why the code in FreeBSD and NetBSD
doesn't currently work (while it would have worked in
the original Mach VM).

A next stage is getting some smart people together
and coming up with a thorough solution.

"Patch first, think later" is definately not the
attitude I'm used to seeing in the FreeBSD world,
no matter how often you and phk have shouted this at
me yesterday ;)

> Anyhow, since you do seem to code a bit for Linux you might want
> to take a shot at fixing the Linux code.  Last I checked, given
> enough time (30 minutes or so) FreeBSD recovers from such situations
> while Linux wets the bed and requires a power cycle.

Indeed, at the moment Linux doesn't have any load control
code at all while FreeBSD should be able to recover in
some situations. Ideally both systems should be able to
recover from just about any situation.


Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml

Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

http://www.conectiva.com/       http://distro.conectiva.com/

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to