From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261906AbTEFWF6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 18:05:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262014AbTEFWF6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 18:05:58 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.224.33.161]:31371 "EHLO holomorphy") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261906AbTEFWF4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 18:05:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 15:18:24 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Timothy Miller Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Another question about thrashing Message-ID: <20030506221824.GU8978@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Timothy Miller , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <3EB7C490.5040803@techsource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EB7C490.5040803@techsource.com> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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