Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Jun 1998 06:58:08 +0200 (CEST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: kswapd's priority |
| |
On 25 Jun 1998, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > Rik van Riel <H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl> writes: > > > > --- vmscan.c.orig Wed Jun 24 18:43:04 1998 > > > +++ vmscan.c Wed Jun 24 18:43:19 1998 > > > It might be better to change the value to 50. This way we > > can have 'soft' realtime tasks with a priority below > > kswapd's and 'hard' realtime tasks with a priority higher > > than kswapd's. > > I think there's a better way to fix it, and it's already high up my 2.1 > bugfix list. Before 2.2, I should be fixing kswapd to have a base > priority which is the lowest possible realtime priority, but to > temporarily inherit the priority of the highest priority task waiting > for memory.
There's only one problem with that: tasks don't wait for memory. If the memory's there they grab it, otherwise they try to free some theirselves; and if that fails, they die.
Rik. +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl | | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |