Jeff Janes writes:
> ("top" doesn't distinguish between memory that has been requested but
> never accessed, versus memory that has been accessed and then truly
> swapped out to disk. So unless you first let it run to steady-state
> before applying pressure, it is hard to interpret the results.)
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 09:51:05AM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> > Correct. The kernel ignores locking requests because it's a great way
>> > to DOS a machine. For example, mlock() of large blocks of memory is
>> > also not permitted fo
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 09:51:05AM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > Correct. The kernel ignores locking requests because it's a great way
> > to DOS a machine. For example, mlock() of large blocks of memory is
> > also not permitted for similar reasons.
>
> Does it ignore such requests in general, or
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Martijn van Oosterhout
wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 11:59:33PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:11 PM, flyusa2010 fly
>> wrote:
>> > hi, folks!
>> > I see that shared cache is implemented by system v shared memory. I wonder
>> > whether
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 11:59:33PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:11 PM, flyusa2010 fly wrote:
> > hi, folks!
> > I see that shared cache is implemented by system v shared memory. I wonder
> > whether data in this area can be swapped out to disk.
> > Isn't it bad that we rea
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:11 PM, flyusa2010 fly wrote:
> hi, folks!
> I see that shared cache is implemented by system v shared memory. I wonder
> whether data in this area can be swapped out to disk.
> Isn't it bad that we read data from disk, put data in shared cache, and
> finally data in shar
hi, folks!
I see that shared cache is implemented by system v shared memory. I wonder
whether data in this area can be swapped out to disk.
Isn't it bad that we read data from disk, put data in shared cache, and
finally data in shared cache is swapped to disk again!
Why not use shmctl(..SHM_LOCK.