Re: Recipe for cooking 2.1.72's mm

Re: Recipe for cooking 2.1.72's mm

[Rik van Riel]

On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Pavel Machek wrote:

> Sorry. There is a problem. It needs to be solved, not worked
> around. (Notice, that same process does nothing bad to 2.0.28).

On my system, it just gives one or two out-of-memory kills
of random processes. I'd really like it if those processes
would be a little less random... Killing kerneld or crond
(or X... remember those poor stateless-vga-card users) is
IMHO worse than killing a program from some USER. Finding
the most hoggy non-root process group and killing some of
it's programs shouldn't be too difficult.

btw: I'm using 2.1.66 with my mmap-age patch...

> And: Work around is bad. Imagine your machine with such behaviour on
> 100MBit ethernet. Imagine me around (ping -f)ing your machine. That
> can keep your pages low for as long as I want. You do not your machine
> to go yo-yo (up and down and up and down ...).

Ok, so we should limit the amount of memory the kernel can grab
for internal usage... Sysctl-wise of course, because some people
have special purpose routing machines.

Rik.
+-----------------------------+------------------------------+
| For Linux mm-patches, go to | "I'm busy managing memory.." |
| my homepage (via LinuxHQ).  | H.H.vanRiel@fys.ruu.nl       |
| ...submissions welcome...   | http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~riel/ |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------+

Re: Recipe for cooking 2.1.72's mm

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > Sorry. There is a problem. It needs to be solved, not worked
> > around. (Notice, that same process does nothing bad to 2.0.28).
> 
> On my system, it just gives one or two out-of-memory kills
> of random processes. I'd really like it if those processes
> would be a little less random... Killing kerneld or crond
> (or X... remember those poor stateless-vga-card users) is
> IMHO worse than killing a program from some USER. Finding
> the most hoggy non-root process group and killing some of
> it's programs shouldn't be too difficult.

Aha. So you were unsuccessfull while reproducing. On my system no
process dies, but whole system is dead.

> btw: I'm using 2.1.66 with my mmap-age patch...
> 
> > And: Work around is bad. Imagine your machine with such behaviour on
> > 100MBit ethernet. Imagine me around (ping -f)ing your machine. That
> > can keep your pages low for as long as I want. You do not your machine
> > to go yo-yo (up and down and up and down ...).
> 
> Ok, so we should limit the amount of memory the kernel can grab
> for internal usage... Sysctl-wise of course, because some people
> have special purpose routing machines.

It might be nice idea. I'm just afraid that for every limit, you find
situation in which limit _must_ be exceeded or action is impossible.

								Pavel

-- 
I'm really pavel@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. 	   Pavel
Look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-).

zombies ....

[Gaurish R Dalvi]

Hi!
	A small doubt.
	Thing is according to books, a zombie has released all its memory
etc. but clogs up a system as the kernel has to maintain its return state.

	How can you make the system release the zombie totally. ( i.e. it
shud not appear in ps command listsing even.).