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 thi
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 ME
> 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 allocatin
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
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
