Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:32:47 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net>, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, Ivan <Ivan.Djelic@prism.uvsq.fr>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Sleeping in low memory situations (was re: 3.3 lockups + X) Message-ID: <199909221932.NAA15145@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909221232370.6368-100000@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <199909221846.MAA14760@mt.sri.com> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909221232370.6368-100000@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Not only that but perhaps reserving an amount of backing store for > > > root may be a good idea, artificially limit the resources to several > > > pages to enable root to actually do something in such a situation. > > > > Stick to the topic at hand. That's another topic again, and the topic > > is the validity of putting processes to sleep. > > No the topic is finding a better way to handle the situation in a more > intellegent manner. > > Nathan, if killing process randomly or even with Matt's algorithm is > what you want there will really be no changing that. I'm not looking > for arguments keeping the current method, i'm looking for arguments > for a new method of handling this. What's needed is a softer way > of doing this. Then propose another method in another thread. You were defending the process of putting a process to sleep, and I disagree that it's a good idea. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909221932.NAA15145>