* Another question about thrashing
@ 2003-05-06 14:20 Timothy Miller
2003-05-06 22:18 ` William Lee Irwin III
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Timothy Miller @ 2003-05-06 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List
There didn't seem to be much interest in my earlier post about kernel
behavior when swap thrashing.
So my question is, are we not concerned about system behavior when one
process uses so much memory that it grinds everything else to a halt?
It appears that a thrashing process is being given more preferential
treatment than it should.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Another question about thrashing
2003-05-06 14:20 Another question about thrashing Timothy Miller
@ 2003-05-06 22:18 ` William Lee Irwin III
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2003-05-06 22:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Timothy Miller; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 10:20:00AM -0400, Timothy Miller wrote:
> There didn't seem to be much interest in my earlier post about kernel
> behavior when swap thrashing.
> So my question is, are we not concerned about system behavior when one
> process uses so much memory that it grinds everything else to a halt?
> It appears that a thrashing process is being given more preferential
> treatment than it should.
Design characteristic of global page replacement algorithms. It's not
getting touched for 2.5/2.6
-- wli
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-05-06 22:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-05-06 14:20 Another question about thrashing Timothy Miller
2003-05-06 22:18 ` William Lee Irwin III
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.