Re: VM

[Patrick McFarland]

On 23-Oct-2001, bill davidsen wrote:
> In article <20011023002702.A2446@localhost>,
> Patrick McFarland <[e-mail]> wrote:
> | Slightly off topic, but I kinda find it cool that this thread is still going, seeing as I
> | started it on the 15th. =)
> | 
> | Anyhow, have we decided that 2.5 should have the ac-vm or the linus-vm?
> 
> I hope not, the bug-fix and corner case competition is doing good thing
> for VM in both directions. That's healthy.
> 
> What I would like to see is VM moved to a module so you could have
> either, or any of several competing designs which would be bound to
> emerge once there's a neat interface and you can write to that instead
> of trying to understand and hack all the stuff needed now. The effort is
> high and the chance for problems high as well right now, in other words
> a high ratio of implementation to method expertise.
> 
That module idea was mine, btw. Rik will speak up on that too, cause I was talking to him about it. =) I dont like having to run ac just for the better vm engine.

> I also would love to see the dispatcher moved to a module, so people can
> easily play with ideas like the idle process, integrating VM and
> dispatch operation at high memory load, etc.
> 
> Right now you not only need to understand the topic, but the
> implementation. The implementation could be made easier with a clean
> interface and an easy way to load changes for test without compiling a
> kernel.
> 
> <BOOM>
>   Yes, I'm still beating the drum for those modules.
> </BOOM>
> 
> -- 
> bill davidsen <[e-mail]>
>   His first management concern is not solving the problem, but covering
> his ass. If he lived in the middle ages he'd wear his codpiece backward.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

-- 
Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || [e-mail]