From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:25:46 +0200 (MET DST) From: Szabolcs Szakacsits Subject: Re: suspend processes at load (was Re: a simple OOM ...) In-Reply-To: <0jurdtceqe39l7019vhckcgktk42m7bln1@4ax.com> 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: Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: 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)]. > They will get this feedback, and more effectively than they do now: > right now, they are left with a dead box they have to reboot. With Not if they RTFM. Moreover thrashing != dead. > IF you overload the system to extremes, then your processes will stop > running for brief periods. Right now, they ALL stop running > indefinitely! This is not true. There *is* progress, it just can be painful slow. > You haven't thought it through, then. "If you don't learn from history .... ". Anyway get familiar with AIX. But as I wrote before, I can't see problem with optional implementation even I think the whole issue is a user space one and kernel efforts should be concentrated fixing 2.4 MM bugs. Szaka -- 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/