From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed May 29 11:20:32 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8171FC41
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 11:20:32 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org)
Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450F596
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 11:20:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
 (envelope-from <freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org>) id 1UheQ0-0006H2-MN
 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:20:30 +0200
Received: from 79-139-19-75.prenet.pl ([79-139-19-75.prenet.pl])
 by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
 id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:19:48 +0200
Received: from jb.1234abcd by 79-139-19-75.prenet.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1
 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:19:48 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
From: jb <jb.1234abcd@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "swap" partition leads to instability?
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 11:19:32 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <loom.20130529T131753-79@post.gmane.org>
References: <1369558712.96152.YahooMailNeo@web165006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <loom.20130526T143506-872@post.gmane.org>
 <1369644392.92027.YahooMailNeo@web165003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <loom.20130527T115233-867@post.gmane.org>
 <loom.20130528T204022-196@post.gmane.org>
 <CAH3a3KU+Ze2SRe0DQVGw=rV1XhCL1z4mZu2Mdv_c_NnAD9pyAw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org
User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
X-Loom-IP: 79.139.19.75 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
 rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 11:20:32 -0000

Fred Morcos <fred.morcos <at> gmail.com> writes:

> .. 
> The improvement effect can be
> noticed on large inputs. These algorithms will most probably perform quite
> badly on small inputs.

I think your concern has been addressed in review of various algos where base
case identification helped to avoid overhead cost in small problem sizes
relative to cache.
http://erikdemaine.org/papers/BRICS2002/paper.pdf

In light of available but not implemented better VMM algos, perhaps *BSD and
Linux could eliminate or reduce the need for:
- swap space
- swapping out RAM even if there is no lack of it
- overcommitment of memory (a bluff asking to be punished by OOM killer)
- OOM killer
Besides, they allow sloppy/dangerous programming.

jb