Daniel Hanks wrote: > On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, Stas Bekman wrote: > > >>See the discussion on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, >>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=101659730800001&r=1&w=2 >>where it was said that it's >>a very bad idea to use mlock and variants. Moreover the memory doesn't >>get unshared >>when the parent pages are paged out, it's the reporting tools that >>report the wrong >>information and of course mislead the the size limiting modules which >>start killing >>the processes. As a conclusion to this thread I've added the following >>section to >>the performance chapter of the guide: >> > > > Are we saying then that libgtop is erroneous in its reporting under these >circumstances? And in the case of Linux, I'm asusming libgtop just reads its info >straight from /proc. Is /proc erroneous then?
As people have pointed out it's not libgtop, it's /proc. You have the same problem with top(1). It's not erroneous, it just doesn't reflect the immidiate change, the /proc will be updated when pages in question will be accessed which for performance reasons doesn't happen immediately. But this could be too late for the processes that are going to be killed. I've posted the C code to test this earlier this week here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-modperl&m=101667859909389&w=2 You are welcome to run more tests and report back. __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
