On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 00:22:09 -0200 (BRST) Rik van Riel <riel _at_ conectiva.com.br> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > > > > I am pretty impressed by Martins test case where merely all VM patches > > > fail with the exception of his own :-) > > > > No big wonder if both -aa and -rmap only get tested without swap ;) > > To be clear ... -aa and -rmap should of course also work > nicely without swap, no excuses for the bad behaviour > shown in Martin's test, but at the moment they simply > don't seem tuned for it. Good to hear we agree it _should_ work. When does it (rmap)? ;-) Regards, Stephan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups:
- Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusableRik van Riel <riel _at_ conectiva.com.br>
- Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusableRik van Riel <riel _at_ conectiva.com.br>
- Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusableRik van Riel <riel _at_ conectiva.com.br>
- Prev by Date: RE: [patch, CFT] improved disk read latency
- Next by Date: lseek() on an iso9660 file
- Previous by thread: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
- Next by thread: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]