Messages in this thread | | | From | James Sutherland <> | Subject | Re: On the issue of low memory situations | Date | Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:34:47 +0000 |
| |
On 19 Mar 2000 15:41:30 +0100, you wrote:
>Den 18-Mar-00 01:24:49 skrev Linda Walsh følgende om "Re: On the issue of low memory situations": > >> I haven't read through this whole thread, so this may have been >> suggested, but why not have a new signal "SIGNMEM". Can't be caught but >> can be ignored. Default is to take the signal and terminate the program >> that faulted. If ignored, put process to sleep until the memory request >> can be satisfied. Then something like 'X' or apache could ignore, while >> 'gcc' would just die. > > It would be much more useful to make it possible for SIGNMEM to be >caught. This would be similiar to low memory handlers as seen on AmigaOS. >Programs could then register a signal handler for SIGNMEM and free up >memory that isn't needed when the signal handler is caught. Some programs >cache reconstructable data for speed reasons and some daemons keep idle >children running to save fork()/exit() overhead.
Yes. Apache, for example, could reduce the number of "spare" children, or even the number of concurrent requests handled, making quite a big difference. (Ideal in a load-balanced server farm - this would automatically transfer some load to less busy systems.)
> Just wondering: Linux isn't smart enough to unload unused modules in low >memory situations, is it?
Sounds like a good idea....
James
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |