Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:26:25 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_sig.c Message-ID: <20050303010246.H811@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20050303064206.GA14434@VARK.MIT.EDU> References: <200503021343.j22DhpQ3075008@repoman.freebsd.org> <200503020915.28512.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <4226446B.7020406@freebsd.org> <20050303033115.GA13174@VARK.MIT.EDU> <42269DB0.6070107@freebsd.org> <20050303052902.GA14011@VARK.MIT.EDU> <4226A46B.2090704@freebsd.org> <20050303001403.W811@odysseus.silby.com> <20050303064206.GA14434@VARK.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, David Schultz wrote: > Another thing that swapping does, though, is prevent some > processes from running for a while when the system is under load, > thereby reducing contention for resources and allowing the other > processes to get things done. If people decide to go this way, it > might be a good idea to keep the second feature. It costs very > little in terms of complexity because no actual swapping is done. > But who knows? Maybe nobody cares about this, either... That'd probably help a lot more than our current system of hoping that the swapping rate limits things does. I bet David could code it up in a matter of minutes. :) Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050303010246.H811>