[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46A5C8B0.5060401@imap.cc>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:38:56 +0200
From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
To: Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
Ray Lee schrieb:
> I spend a lot of time each day watching my computer fault my
> workingset back in when I switch contexts. I'd rather I didn't have to
> do that. Unfortunately, that's a pretty subjective problem report. For
> whatever it's worth, we have pretty subjective solution reports
> pointing to swap prefetch as providing a fix for them.
Add me.
> My concern is that a subjective problem report may not be good enough.
That's my impression too, seeing the insistence on numbers.
> So, what do I measure to make this an objective problem report?
That seems to be the crux of the matter: how to measure subjective
usability issues (aka user experience) when simple reports along the
lines of "A is much better than B for everyday work" are not enough.
The same problem already impaired the "fair scheduler" discussion.
It would really help to have a clear direction there.
--
Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@...p.cc
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (251 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists