Re: What are the VM motivations??

[Colonel]

In clouddancer.list.kernel, you wrote:
>
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Jason McMullan wrote:
>
>> 	One we know how we would 'train' our little VM critter, we 
>> will know how to measure its performance. Once we have measures, we
>> can have good benchmarks. Once we have good benchmarks - we can pick
>> a good VM alg. 
>> 
>> 	Or heck, let's just make the VM a _real_ Neural Network, that
>
>OK.  I challenge you to come up with:
>
>1) the set of inputs for the neural network
>2) the set of outputs
>3) the goal for training the thing
>
>I'm pretty fed up with people who want to "change the VM"
>but never give any details of their ideas.

It's simple.  I want the old reliable behavior back, the one I found
in kernels from 1.1.41 thru 2.2.14.  The behavior that I have enjoyed
for 7 years, the one that allows me to chuckle when listening to
windoze user's expressing their woes.  Not the one that kills
important processes because of some fantasy AI, not the one that locks
up the machine.  The one that lets me run an unattended machine for
months rather than barely make it thru a week.

What you hear now is nothing compared to the roar that will occur
shortly (as the distributions start releasing 2.4 versions) when the
masses encounter the current surprises.  They will not be able to say
in detail how to change the VM, other than the above.  We want to USE
linux and depend upon it, not become VM gurus to fix our kernels.

-- 
"Or heck, let's just make the VM a _real_ Neural Network, that self
trains itself to the load you put on the system. Hideously complex and
evil?  Well, why not wire up that roach on the floor, eating that stale
cheese doodle. It can't do any worse job on VM that some of the VM
patches I've seen..."  -- Jason McMullan

ditto