Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:48:56 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net>, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, Ivan <Ivan.Djelic@prism.uvsq.fr>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Out of swap handling and X lockups in 3.2R Message-ID: <199909221848.MAA14800@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96.990922131457.26337A-100000@shell-3.enteract.com> References: <199909221727.LAA14290@mt.sri.com> <Pine.NEB.3.96.990922131457.26337A-100000@shell-3.enteract.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Maybe, and then again, maybe not. A program is requesting memory, so > > putting other processes to sleep *keeps* them from freeing up memory. > > The process that is trying to use memory is put to sleep. Then this 'rogue' process is never allowed to free up any of it's resources, hence the system is *still* out of swap, and all of the non-offending processes must deal with the out-of-memory situation they haven't caused, nor can they do anything about it. So, now we have a system that just takes longer to completely die off due to lack of resources since we've stopped the biggest offender from getting bigger. (Also, it turns out that often enough the process that requests the page that drives the system over the edge is not in fact the rogue process, thus causing the system to slowly become unusable with no way of recovering.) I'd much rather my system die quickly than slowly, since by dying quickly I can get back to work much quicker instead of not getting any work done for a long period of time. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909221848.MAA14800>