From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: suspend processes at load References: <1809062307.20010319210655@dragon.cz> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 19 Apr 2001 22:11:28 -0600 In-Reply-To: "James A. Sutherland"'s message of "Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:14:48 +0100" 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: happz , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: "James A. Sutherland" writes: > On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:06:55 +0100, you wrote: > > >What about this: give to process way how to tell kernel "it is not > >good to suspend me, because there are process' that depend on me and > >wouldn't be blocked." Syscall or /proc filesystem could be used. > > > >It is not the way how to say which process should be suspended but a > >way how to say which could NOT - usefull for example for X server, may > >be some daemons, aso. > > Possibly; TBH, I don't think it's worth it. Remember, "suspending" X > would just stop your mouse moving etc. for (e.g.) 5 seconds; in fact, > that should block most graphical processes, which may well resolve the > thrashing in itself! Actually we should only apply suspension and the like to SCHED_OTHER. The realtime scheduling classes should be left as is. If an application is safe to run realtime, it should be o.k. in the thrashing situation. Also actually suspending a realtime process would be a violation of the realtime scheduling guarantees, where with SCHED_OTHER you can be expected to be suspended at any time. Eric -- 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/