From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263775AbTEFOGG (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 10:06:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263772AbTEFOFE (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 10:05:04 -0400 Received: from watch.techsource.com ([209.208.48.130]:44252 "EHLO techsource.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263729AbTEFOD4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2003 10:03:56 -0400 Message-ID: <3EB7C490.5040803@techsource.com> Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 10:20:00 -0400 From: Timothy Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Another question about thrashing Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.