From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266110AbUBCTZa (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:25:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266019AbUBCTYo (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:24:44 -0500 Received: from gprs159-73.eurotel.cz ([160.218.159.73]:27776 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266068AbUBCTOL (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:14:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:13:36 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: bill davidsen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: sched-idle and disk-priorities for 2.6.X Message-ID: <20040203191336.GA372@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20040123185914.GA870@elf.ucw.cz> <20040123210449.GA250@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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?]