On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> Basically, I want to provide processes some guarantees that their pages are
> not swapped out if they are "well-behaved" and stay under their limits.
> I consider hard upper limits for resident size as senseless, because it's not
> really an exhaustible resource (swap is designed right to make it so).
> Moreover, upper limits do not provide you true quality of service.
> If all subjects of accounting are staying under their limits, there still may be
> troubles because overcommitment is a typical (and cost-performance efficient)
> policy. Contrary to upper limits, guaranteed minimal amount of resources
> provides you quality of service for "well-behaved" subjects independently of
> (mis-)behavior of others. That's how I'm approaching to memory management.
This is really nice.
How do you plan to make this with current 2.4 VM active/inactive/scanvenge
lists?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 21:00:22 EST