From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 02:59:31 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: suspend processes at load (was Re: a simple OOM ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "James A.Sutherland" Cc: Jonathan Morton , "Joseph A. Knapka" , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, James A.Sutherland wrote: > >Now, I suspect you guys have been thinking "hey, he's going to give > >processes memory *proportionate* to their working sets, which doesn't > >work!" - well, I realised early on it wasn't going to work that way. :) > > You seem to be creeping subtly towards process suspension :) For every simple, working solution there must be at least 3 complex grand schemes that almost work ;) Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/ -- 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/