Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:53:07 -0400 | Subject | Re: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.8.1-P9 | From | Scott Wood <> |
| |
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:32:39PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > I am not sure this is solvable though. If you fire off a bunch of > processes that try to allocate way more memory than is physically > available then you will have worse problems than latency.
I don't see why it would be unsolvable if you limit the expectation of reasonable latency to processes that have mlockall()ed and allocated all the memory they need in advance (and don't have to wait on processes that haven't). Obviously, the latency for actually allocating memory isn't going to be too good in such a case (though strict no-overcommit could decrease the latency of failure to allocate).
-Scott - 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/
| |