From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 08:07:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 08:07:24 -0400 Received: from gw.framfab.dk ([194.239.251.2]:60169 "HELO [194.239.251.2]") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 08:07:09 -0400 Message-ID: <3B6A935B.8000004@fugmann.dhs.org> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 14:04:43 +0200 From: Anders Peter Fugmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010628 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Ongoing 2.4 VM suckage In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)@localhost.localdomain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi. While reading this thread, there is something that I do not quite understand, and I hope that some of you could please explain it to me. Why is the machine going dead (soft-deadlock as someone called it)? If there is not enough avaiable memory for a process in running state to actually run, other processes would be swapped out right, but this "simple" operation should not bring the machine down should it. If the reason for the machine going bad is because when the running process eventually (or even before) gets all it memory to actually run, it is rescheduled, I see a simple solution. Stop rescheduling too often when memory is low. Rescheduling is very memory demanding (in terms of swapping and stuff), and that is not helping the situation. Any thought on this, or am I compleatly mistaken? Regards Anders Fugmann