From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James A. Sutherland Subject: Re: suspend processes at load (was Re: a simple OOM ...) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:08:33 +0100 Message-ID: <00b5et8fnosiic8ii723qjjnrp4k5ainml@4ax.com> References: <3AE1DCA8.A6EF6802@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <3AE1DCA8.A6EF6802@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Joseph A. Knapka" Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:16:56 -0600, you wrote: >"James A. Sutherland" wrote: >> >> Note that process suspension already happens, but with too fine a >> granularity (the scheduler) - that's what causes the problem. If one >> process were able to run uninterrupted for, say, a second, it would >> get useful work done, then you could switch to another. The current >> scheduling doesn't give enough time for that under thrashing >> conditions. > >This suggests that a very simple approach might be to just increase >the scheduling granularity as the machine begins to thrash. IOW, >use the existing scheduler as the "suspension scheduler". That's effectively what this approach does - the problem is, we need to prevent this process being scheduled for some significant period of time. I think just SIGSTOPing each process to be suspended is a more elegant solution than trying to hack the scheduler to support "Don't schedule this process for the next 5 seconds", but I'm not certain? James. -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/