From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265478AbUAZXJM (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:09:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265573AbUAZXJM (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:09:12 -0500 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([216.238.38.203]:23050 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265478AbUAZXJG (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:09:06 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: gatekeeper.tmr.com!davidsen From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: sched-idle and disk-priorities for 2.6.X Date: 26 Jan 2004 23:08:47 GMT Organization: TMR Associates, Schenectady NY Message-ID: References: <20040123185914.GA870@elf.ucw.cz> <20040123210449.GA250@elf.ucw.cz> X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1075158527 6974 192.168.12.62 (26 Jan 2004 23:08:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com Originator: davidsen@gatekeeper.tmr.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <20040123210449.GA250@elf.ucw.cz>, Pavel Machek wrote: | > > 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. 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 :-( Thanks for this prompt implementation, I do have a few applications which can use it! -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.