From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz [195.113.31.123]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA09811 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:18:16 -0500 Message-ID: <19971218143357.10435@Elf.mj.gts.cz> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 14:33:57 +0100 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: pageable page tables References: <19971217221425.30735@Elf.mj.gts.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Rik van Riel on Thu, Dec 18, 1997 at 12:02:43AM +0100 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: H.H.vanRiel@fys.ruu.nl Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi! > > 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. > > This is exactly the place where SCHED_BG works. By > suspending all but one of the jobs, a heavy multi-user > machine only has to worry about the interactive jobs, > and the disk I/O of _one_ SCHED_BG job... Disk I/O of one job is just enough to make machine pretty annoying for interactive use. Try make dep on background. (And: I assume that usualy there will be <=1 SCHED_BG job.) Pavel -- I'm really pavel@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz. Pavel Look at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/ ;-).