From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:41:59 +0200 From: "Andi Kleen" Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.3.99-pre6-3+ VM rebalancing Message-ID: <20000426174159.A14599@gruyere.muc.suse.de> References: <200004261433.HAA13894@pizda.ninka.net> <200004261528.IAA13982@pizda.ninka.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200004261528.IAA13982@pizda.ninka.net>; from davem@redhat.com on Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 08:28:21AM -0700 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "David S. Miller" Cc: ak@suse.de, riel@conectiva.com.br, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 08:28:21AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Andi Kleen > Date: 26 Apr 2000 18:31:50 +0200 > > But is that still fair ? A memory hog could rapidly allocate and > dirty pages, killing the small innocent daemon which just needs to > get some work done. > > If the daemon is actually doing anything, he'll reference his > pages which will cause us to not liberate them. If he's not doing > anything, why should we keep his pages around? What is if he isn't doing stuff quickly enough compared to the spending significant parts of the CPU just to dirty pages memory hog ? I imagine that the page scanning intervals will be too slow, if you age more often you eat too much CPU [at least on Intel/SMP every pte access is a locked transfer on the bus], if you do it too seldom the memory hog can easily kill the system. -Andi -- 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/