From owner-freebsd-arch Fri May 18 6:56:20 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from helium.chromatix.org.uk (turnover.lancs.ac.uk [148.88.17.220]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1296B37B43C for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 06:56:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chromi@cyberspace.org) Received: from dolphin.chromatix.org.uk ([192.168.239.105]) by helium.chromatix.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.15 #5) id 150kd2-0007iU-00; Fri, 18 May 2001 14:49:16 +0100 X-Sender: chromi@helium.chromatix.org.uk Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200105180620.f4I6KNd05878@earth.backplane.com> References: <200105161754.f4GHsCd73025@earth.backplane.com> <3B04BA0D.8E0CAB90@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:49:09 +0100 To: Matt Dillon , Terry Lambert From: Jonathan Morton Subject: Re: on load control / process swapping Cc: Rik van Riel , Charles Randall , Roger Larsson , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, linux-mm@kvack.org, sfkaplan@cs.amherst.edu Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >:Cutler suggested a working set quota (first in VMS, later >:in NT) to deal with these programs. > The problem is not the resident set size, it's the > seeking that the program is causing as a matter of > course. The RSS of 'ld' isn't the problem, no. However, the working-set idea would place an effective and sensible limit of the size of the disk cache, by ensuring that other apps aren't being paged out beyond their non-working sets. Does this make sense? FWIW, I've been running with a 2-line hack in my kernel for some weeks now, which essentially forces the RSS of each process not to be forced below some arbitrary "fair share" of the physical memory available. It's not a very clean hack, but it improves performance by a very large margin under a thrashing load. The only problem I'm seeing is a deadlock when I run out of VM completely, but I think that's a separate issue that others are already working on. To others: is there already a means whereby we can (almost) calculate the WS of a given process? The "accessed" flag isn't a good one, but maybe the 'age' value is better. However, I haven't quite clicked on how the 'age' value is affected in either direction. -------------------------------------------------------------- from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton mail: chromi@cyberspace.org (not for attachments) big-mail: chromatix@penguinpowered.com uni-mail: j.d.morton@lancaster.ac.uk The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it. Get VNC Server for Macintosh from http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/vnc/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version 3.12 GCS$/E/S dpu(!) s:- a20 C+++ UL++ P L+++ E W+ N- o? K? w--- O-- M++$ V? PS PE- Y+ PGP++ t- 5- X- R !tv b++ DI+++ D G e+ h+ r++ y+(*) -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message