From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [patch] vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 - fixing deadlocks References: <20000924224303.C2615@redhat.com> <20000925001342.I5571@athlon.random> <20000925003650.A20748@home.ds9a.nl> <20000925014137.B6249@athlon.random> <20000925172442.J2615@redhat.com> <20000925190347.E27677@athlon.random> <20000925190657.N2615@redhat.com> <20000925213242.A30832@athlon.random> <20000925205457.Y2615@redhat.com> <20000926160554.B13832@athlon.random> From: Christoph Rohland Date: 26 Sep 2000 18:20:47 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Rik van Riel , Roger Larsson , MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Andrea Arcangeli writes: > Could you tell me what's wrong in having an app with a 1.5G mapped executable > (or a tiny executable but with a 1.5G shared/private file mapping if you > prefer), O.K. that sound more reasonable. I was reading image as program text... and a 1.5GB program text is a something I never have seen (and hopefully will never see :-) > 300M of shm (or 300M of anonymous memory if you prefer) and 200M as > filesystem cache? I don't really see a reason for fs cache in the application. I think that parallel applications tend to either share mostly all or nothing, but I may be wrong here. > The application have a misc I/O load that in some part will run out > of the working set, what's wrong with this? > > What's ridiculous? Please elaborate. I think we fixed this misreading. But still IMHO you underestimate the importance of shared memory for a lot of applications in the high end. There is not only Oracle out there and most of the shared memory is _not_ locked. Greetings Christoph -- 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/