On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Martin Knoblauch wrote: > I do not care much whether the cache is using 99% of the systems memory > or 50%. As long as there is free memory, using it for cache is great. I > care a lot if the cache takes down interactivity, because it pushes out > processes that it thinks idle, but that I need in 5 seconds. The caches > pressure against processes Too bad that processes are in general cached INSIDE the cache. You'll have to write a new balancing story now ;) regards, Rik -- Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release: "we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)" http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Marco Colombo
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Daniel Phillips
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Pozsar Balazs
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Jason McMullan
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 John Fremlin
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Pavel Machek
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Dan Maas
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Mike Castle
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Xavier Bestel
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Martin Knoblauch
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Rik van Riel
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Martin Knoblauch
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Helge Hafting
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Martin Knoblauch
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Tobias Ringstrom
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Xavier Bestel
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Tobias Ringstrom
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 mike_phillips
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Alan Cox
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Tobias Ringstrom
- Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 Alan Cox