Re: sched-idle and disk-priorities for 2.6.X

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> | > > I'm afraid it needs to be more aggressive.
> | > 
> | > OK, is the patch below any better ?
> | 
> | Yes, this one actually works. When I launched two 150MB tasks, one of
> | them with ulimit -m 1, the limited task yielded its memory to
> | unlimited one. It worked as expected.
> 
> I'm not sure what "as expected" means with this small a limit, hopefully
> not "pages its butt off." I am printing a hardcopy of the 2nd patch and
> a bit of the surrounding code, and also compiling a new kernel with the
> patch in place, so I can play a bit in the morning.

Well, it should mean "all the memory from this process should be
reclaimed if it is needed".

> I also wonder if a sanity check is desirable on the minimum size. At
> some point I would think the system would get a lot of overhead trying
> to actually use a single 1k page :-(

I believe it is okay as is. It just gives it very low "memory-priority".

									Pavel
-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]