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: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:08:29 +0100 Message-ID: <6m3tdtkpcf22j0pq28is7b7c6digfapg06@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: Szabolcs Szakacsits , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:11:59 -0300 (BRST), you wrote: >On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, James A. Sutherland wrote: >> > >How you want to avoid "deadlocks" when running processes have >> > >dependencies on suspended processes? >> > If a process blocks waiting for another, the thrashing will be >> > resolved. >> >> This is a big simplification, e.g. not if it polls [not poll(2)]. > >If it sits there in a loop, the rest of the memory that process >uses can be swapped out ;) Also, if your program is busy-waiting for another to complete in that way, you need to feed it into /dev/null and get another program :-) 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/