On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > Handling out-of-memory in a clean and predictable way is the > next thing on the feature list. I'll add it RSN (I'm reasonably > sure now that the current VM features are stable ... time for > OOM handling). Stable is good. But before moving on, wouldn't it be nice to have some test8 vs. test9 vs. 2.2.14 (or so) benchmarks, to confirm it was worth the pain of a whole pre-patch series weeding out deadlocks? Cheers Chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Soft-Updates for Linux ? Alexander Viro
- Re: Soft-Updates for Linux ? Christoph Hellwig
- Re: Soft-Updates for Linux ? bert hubert
- Re: Soft-Updates for Linux ? Rik van Riel
- Re: Soft-Updates for Linux ? Daniel Phillips
- Re: Soft-Updates for Linux ? Stephen C. Tweedie
- VM in v2.4.0test9 David Weinehall
- Re: VM in v2.4.0test9 Rik van Riel
- Re: VM in v2.4.0test9 David Weinehall
- Re: VM in v2.4.0test9 Rik van Riel
- Re: VM in v2.4.0test9 Chris Evans
- Re: VM in v2.4.0test9 Rik van Riel
- Re: VM in v2.4.0test9 Rik van Riel
- Re: VM in v2.4.0test9 David Weinehall
- Re: VM in v2.4.0test9 Roger Larsson
- Re: VM in v2.4.0test9 Rik van Riel
- Re: VM in v2.4.0test9 Rik van Riel
- Re: VM in v2.4.0test9 Roger Larsson
- Re: VM in v2.4.0test9 Rik van Riel
- Re: VM in v2.4.0test9 Roger Larsson
- Re: VM in v2.4.0test9 David Weinehall