From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:14:29 +0200 (MET DST) From: Szabolcs Szakacsits 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: Dave McCracken , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, James A. Sutherland wrote: > That's my suspicion too: The "strangled" processes eat up system > resources and still get nowhere (no win there: might as well suspend > them until they can run properly!) and you are wasting resources which > could be put to good use by other processes. You assumes processes are completely equal or their goodnesses are based on their thrasing behavior. No. Processes are not like that from user point of view (admins, app developers) moreover they can have complex relationships between them. Kernel must give mechanisms to enforce policies, not to dictate them. And this can be done even at present. You want to create and solve a problem that doesn't exist because you don't want to RTFM. > More to the point, though, what about the worst case, where every > process is thrashing? What about the simplest case when one process thrasing? You suspend it continuously from time to time so it won't finish e.g. in 10 minutes but in 1 hour. > With my approach, some processes get suspended, others run to > completion freeing up resources for others. This is black magic also. Why do you think they will run to completion or/and free up memory? > With this approach, every process will still thrash indefinitely: > perhaps the effects on other processes will be reduced, but you > don't actually get out of the hole you're in! So both approach failed. 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/