In article <000b01c03bef$17e43c30$0200a8c0@W2K> you wrote:
> PS this is my first post to lkml so please keep that in mind...
> PPS ... so, was I right?
yes welcome, thanks for reminding me of that. And i think exactly that point
could be a bit optimized.
Greetings
Bernd
-
To unsubscribe from
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:21:11PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 1) some process allocates gobs of memory
> 2) the kernel swaps out memory from all processes
> 3) some of the other - partly swapped out - processes
>wake up and need to be swapped in
> 4) these other processes have to ALLOCATE
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:21:11PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
1) some process allocates gobs of memory
2) the kernel swaps out memory from all processes
3) some of the other - partly swapped out - processes
wake up and need to be swapped in
4) these other processes have to ALLOCATE MEMORY
In article 000b01c03bef$17e43c30$0200a8c0@W2K you wrote:
PS this is my first post to lkml so please keep that in mind...
PPS ... so, was I right?
yes welcome, thanks for reminding me of that. And i think exactly that point
could be a bit optimized.
Greetings
Bernd
-
To unsubscribe from this
> why are programs which do not allocate memory be delayed while one
> program is eating up all memory. This clearly means they are not delayed
in
> the malloc call but simply the kernel will not schedule them while he is
bussy
> to page out processes.
Bernd,
The reason why programs not
why are programs which do not allocate memory be delayed while one
program is eating up all memory. This clearly means they are not delayed
in
the malloc call but simply the kernel will not schedule them while he is
bussy
to page out processes.
Bernd,
The reason why programs not allocating
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I know it does thats why i have run that tool- The question is still, why
> gets my system unusable in the same second my systems starts to page out?
To follow up on myself: the question was why are programs which do not
allocate memory be delayed
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 12:22:00PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > as the proccess is killed. But still i wonder why the swap out
> > is such unfair to the rest of the system, especially to a
> > process which is not actually allocating memory at all.
>
> Look again ... "tail /dev/zero" allocates
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 12:22:00PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
as the proccess is killed. But still i wonder why the swap out
is such unfair to the rest of the system, especially to a
process which is not actually allocating memory at all.
Look again ... "tail /dev/zero" allocates
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
I know it does thats why i have run that tool- The question is still, why
gets my system unusable in the same second my systems starts to page out?
To follow up on myself: the question was why are programs which do not
allocate memory be delayed while
Hello,
with 2.4.0-test10-pre2 (possibly long before that version) i still can bring
the system to a halt while "tail /dev/zero" is running. I don't complain
that you can make a DOS by a trshing system, cause I can use ulimit to
actually avoid that.
But if i use the tail /dev/zero with nice as a
Hello,
with 2.4.0-test10-pre2 (possibly long before that version) i still can bring
the system to a halt while "tail /dev/zero" is running. I don't complain
that you can make a DOS by a trshing system, cause I can use ulimit to
actually avoid that.
But if i use the tail /dev/zero with nice as a
12 matches
Mail list logo
