From owner-freebsd-arch Tue May 15 8:36:48 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from netbank.com.br (garrincha.netbank.com.br [200.203.199.88]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C233E37B422 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from riel@conectiva.com.br) Received: from surriel.ddts.net (1-248.ctame701-1.telepar.net.br [200.181.137.248]) by netbank.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45EB546810; Tue, 15 May 2001 12:32:38 -0300 (BRST) Received: from localhost (msnpvu@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by surriel.ddts.net (8.11.3/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4FFVLi01316; Tue, 15 May 2001 12:31:25 -0300 Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:31:21 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-Sender: riel@imladris.rielhome.conectiva To: Terry Lambert Cc: Matt Dillon , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, linux-mm@kvack.org, sfkaplan@cs.amherst.edu Subject: Re: on load control / process swapping In-Reply-To: <3B00CECF.9A3DEEFA@mindspring.com> Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 14 May 2001, Terry Lambert wrote: > Rik van Riel wrote: > > So we should not allow just one single large job to take all > > of memory, but we should allow some small jobs in memory too. > > Historically, this problem is solved with a "working set > quota". This is a great idea for when the system is in-between normal loads and real thrashing. It will save small processes while slowing down memory hogs which are taking resources fairly. I'm not convinced it is any replacement for swapping, but it sure a good way to delay swapping as long as possible. Also, having a working set size guarantee in combination with idle swapping will almost certainly give the proveribial root shell the boost it needs ;) > Doing extremely complicated things is only going to get > you into trouble... in particular, you don't want to > have policy in effect to deal with border load conditions > unless you are under those conditions in the first place. Agreed. > It's possible to do a more complicated working set quota, > which actually applies to a process' working set, instead > of to vnodes, out of context with the process, I guess in FreeBSD a per-vnode approach would be easier to implement while in Linux a per-process working set would be easier... regards, Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message