Re: Sleeping in low memory situations (was re: 3.3 lockups + X)

1999-09-22 Thread Nate Williams
> > > 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 top

Re: Sleeping in low memory situations (was re: 3.3 lockups + X)

1999-09-22 Thread Alfred Perlstein
On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Nate Williams wrote: > > 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'

Re: Sleeping in low memory situations (was re: 3.3 lockups + X)

1999-09-22 Thread Nate Williams
> > > > What kind of resources are there that both cause loss of swap AND are > > > > freed up by sleeping a process? > > > > > > four things i can think of: > > > > > > 1) Along with 'SIGDANGER' it allows the system to fix itself. > > > > That's another issue. Don't mix sleeping processes wit

Sleeping in low memory situations (was re: 3.3 lockups + X)

1999-09-22 Thread Alfred Perlstein
On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Nate Williams wrote: > > > What kind of resources are there that both cause loss of swap AND are > > > freed up by sleeping a process? > > > > four things i can think of: > > > > 1) Along with 'SIGDANGER' it allows the system to fix itself. > > That's another issue. Don'