From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:18:34 +0200 (MET DST) From: Szabolcs Szakacsits Subject: Re: suspend processes at load (was Re: a simple OOM ...) In-Reply-To: <11530000.987705299@baldur> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Dave McCracken Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Dave McCracken wrote: > --On Wednesday, April 18, 2001 23:32:25 +0200 Szabolcs Szakacsits > > How you want to avoid "deadlocks" when running processes have > > dependencies on suspended processes? > I think there's a semantic misunderstanding here. If I understand Rik's > proposal right, he's not talking about completely suspending a process ala > SIGSTOP. He's talking about removing it from the run queue for some small > length of time (ie a few seconds, probably) during which all the other > processes can make progress. Yes, I also didn't mean deadlocks in its classical sense this is the reason I put it in quote. The issue is the unexpected potentially huge communication latencies between processes/threads or between user and system. App developers do write code taking load/latency into account but not in mind some of their processes/threads can get suspended for indeterminated interval from time to time. > This kind of suspension won't be noticeable to users/administrators > or permanently block dependent processes. In fact, it should make > the system appear more responsive than one in a thrashing state. With occasionally suspended X, sshd, etc, etc, etc ;) 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/