From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James A. Sutherland Subject: Re: suspend processes at load (was Re: a simple OOM ...) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:30:05 +0100 Message-ID: References: <6m3tdtkpcf22j0pq28is7b7c6digfapg06@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Szabolcs Szakacsits Cc: Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:37:04 +0200 (MET DST), you wrote: > >On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, James A. Sutherland wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:11:59 -0300 (BRST), you wrote: >> >If it sits there in a loop, the rest of the memory that process >> >uses can be swapped out ;) >> Also, if your program is busy-waiting for another to complete in that >> way, you need to feed it into /dev/null and get another program :-) > >Is it so difficult to imagine a thread/process, doing its job and >sometimes checking (changed filestamps, new files in a dir, whatever) >for new things to do? This is of course a simple, stupid case, real life >is much more tough (SAP dies on Linux because of its max process limit >[and forget 2.4]). IMHO you want to stop the river and hope it won't >flood. Quite the opposite - I want to drain the river, you want to let it flood to teach the sysadmin a lesson! James. -- 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/