On 2012a1'05ae??18ae?JPY 23:07, Rik van Riel wrote:

On 05/17/2012 11:44 PM, Nai Xia wrote:

quoted

But I do think that Clock-pro deserves its credit, since after all
it's that research work firstly brought the idea of "refault/reuse
distance" to the kernel community.

The ARC people did that, too.

Well, I think you said "take the good parts of clock-pro"...
Anyway, then I think you should credit either of the previous
works... :D

quoted

Further more, it's also good
to let the researchers and the community to together have some
brain-storm of this problem if it's really hard to deal with in
reality.

How much are researchers interested in the real world
constraints that OS developers have to deal with?

I think there will be nobody, if we don't try to let them
know about the constraints. Honestly, LKML are hard for
researchers to follow. They really need abstract view of
a problem. Surely there is a gap...between researchers and
developers.

Often scalability is as much of a goal as being good
at selecting the right page to replace...

Then scalability might be a good research topic as long
as they have the chance to understand the details.

Ok, all I want to say is another way that may help
the kernel world better. I am actually quite positive
about the patch itself.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>