From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266642AbUAWS7f (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:59:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266606AbUAWS7f (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:59:35 -0500 Received: from gprs214-223.eurotel.cz ([160.218.214.223]:45440 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266642AbUAWS7c (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:59:32 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:59:15 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Rik van Riel Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, kernel list Subject: Re: sched-idle and disk-priorities for 2.6.X Message-ID: <20040123185914.GA870@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20040122010438.GD223@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > ulimit -m 1 > > > > > > should make that task run with extremely low priority, right? > > Yeah, when the box is under memory pressure, pages from that > task should never hit the active list. Instead, they should > always stay on the inactive list and the non-referenced pages > from that app should get reclaimed. > > OTOH, if the app keeps referencing all pages, maybe I need > to tune up the aggressiveness a bit and also reclaim the > referenced pages ... if the current patch doesn't work right > I'll make a more aggressive one. I'm afraid it needs to be more aggressive. I made two programs, each walking over 150MB of memory, and ran them at same time on 250MB machine. One of them with ulimit -m 1... Both got about the same ammount of RAM and progressed at similar speed. Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]