Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:00:15 +1100 | | From | Peter Chubb <> | | Subject | Re: RSS Limit implementation issue |
| |
>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> writes:
Bill> Ram Gupta wrote:
Bill> If you want to make rss a hard limit the result should be Bill> swapping, not failure to run. I'm not sure the limit in that Bill> form is a good idea, and before someone reminds me, I do Bill> remember liking it better a few years ago.
Bill> If you can come up with a better way to adjust rss to get better Bill> overall greater throughput while being fair to all processes, go Bill> to it. But in general these things are a tradeoff, like Bill> swappiness, you tune until the volume of complaints reaches a Bill> minimum.
What I did in one experiment was to: 1. delay swapin requests if the process was over its rsslimit, until it fell below, and 2. Poke the swapper to try to swap out the current process's pages in that case.
The problem with the approach is that it behaved poorly under memory pressure. If a process's optimum working set was larger than its RSS limit, then either it was delayed to the point of glaciality, or it could saturate the swap device (and so disturb other processes's operation).
-- Dr Peter Chubb http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au peterc AT gelato.unsw.edu.au http://www.ertos.nicta.com.au ERTOS within National ICT Australia - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |