Re: kswapd's priority
Rik van Riel (H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl)
Fri, 26 Jun 1998 06:58:08 +0200 (CEST)
On 25 Jun 1998, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Rik van Riel <H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl> writes:
>
> > > --- vmscan.c.orig Wed Jun 24 18:43:04 1998
> > > +++ vmscan.c Wed Jun 24 18:43:19 1998
>
> > It might be better to change the value to 50. This way we
> > can have 'soft' realtime tasks with a priority below
> > kswapd's and 'hard' realtime tasks with a priority higher
> > than kswapd's.
>
> I think there's a better way to fix it, and it's already high up my 2.1
> bugfix list. Before 2.2, I should be fixing kswapd to have a base
> priority which is the lowest possible realtime priority, but to
> temporarily inherit the priority of the highest priority task waiting
> for memory.
There's only one problem with that: tasks don't wait for
memory. If the memory's there they grab it, otherwise they
try to free some theirselves; and if that fails, they die.
Rik.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl |
| Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu