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 21:58:09 +0100 Message-ID: <2ch6etcc6mvtt83g45gu5dta6ftp8kudoe@4ax.com> References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Jonathan Morton , "Joseph A. Knapka" , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 17:41:41 -0300 (BRST), you wrote: >On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, James A.Sutherland wrote: > >> >>How exactly will your approach solve the two process case, yet still >> >>keeping the processes running properly? >> > >> >It will allocate one process it's entire working set in physical RAM, >> >> Which one? > >A random one. And after some time you switch, suspending the >first process and letting the other one run. We've crossed wires here: I know that's how the suspension approach works, I'm talking about the "working set" approach - which to me, sounds more likely to give both processes 50Mb each, and spend the next six weeks grinding the disks to powder! >Note that I have code for this on my system here, I'll put it >online soon. Cool - I'll finally be able to open files in Acrobat Reader without having one finger on the reset button :-) 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/