From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 00:09:54 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9 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: Alexander Viro Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Alan Cox , Daniel Phillips , Rob Fuller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > It means that you prefer system dying under much lighter load. At > some point any box will get into feedback loop, > The question being, at which point will it happen and how graceful > will the degradation be when we get near that point. And ... what do we do when we reach that point ? It's obvious that we need load control to make the machine survive at that point; load control is a horrible measure which will make interactivity very bad, but will cause the box to survive where otherwise it would be thrashing. Having a better paging system would mean having the 'thrashing point' (where we need to kick in load control' much further out and being able to keep the system behave better under heavier VM loads. regards, Rik -- IA64: a worthy successor to i860. http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy) -- 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-mm.org/