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: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:41:42 +0100 Message-ID: References: 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: Rik van Riel Cc: Jonathan Morton , "Joseph A. Knapka" , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: 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/