From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (root@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.31.123]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA05900 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:31:08 -0500 Message-ID: <19971217221425.30735@Elf.mj.gts.cz> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 22:14:25 +0100 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: pageable page tables References: <19971210161108.02428@Elf.mj.gts.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Rik van Riel on Fri, Dec 12, 1997 at 07:57:16AM +0100 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: H.H.vanRiel@fys.ruu.nl Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi! > > Not sure this is good idea. > > Many systems use something like NQS for large jobs, but > this would be a nice scheme for 'medium' jobs. The > machine at our school, for instance, has a 5minute CPU > limit (per process)... > Doing a large compile (glibc :-) on such a machine would > not only fail, but it would also annoy other users. This > SCHED_BG scheme doesn't really load the rest of the system... No, it would not fail, as no single process eats 5 minutes. And even with SCHED_BG you would load rest of the system: you would load disk subsystem. Often, disk subsystem is more important than CPU. > > > And when free memory stays below free_pages_low for more > > > than 5 seconds, we can choose to have even normal processes > > > queued for some time (in order to reduce paging) > > someone else have an opinion on this? Too many heuristics? Pavel -- I'm really pavel@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. Pavel Look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-).