Re: suspend processes at load (was Re: a simple OOM ...)

[James A. Sutherland <jas88@cam.ac.uk>]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 15:57:32 -0300 (BRST), you wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>
>> I think we're approaching the problem from opposite viewpoints.  
>> Don't get me wrong here - I think process suspension could be a
>> valuable "feature" under extreme load, but I think that the
>> working-set idea will perform better and more consistently under "mild
>> overloads", which the current system handles extremely poorly.  
>
>Could this mean that we might want _both_ ?

Absolutely, as I said elsewhere.

>1) a minimal guaranteed working set for small processes, so root
>   can login and large hogs don't penalize good guys
>   (simpler than the working set idea, should work just as good)

Yep - this will help us under heavy load conditions, when the system
starts getting "sluggish"...

>2) load control through process suspension when the load gets
>   too high to handle, this is also good to let the hogs (which
>   would thrash with the working set idea) make some progress
>   in turns

Exactly!


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/