On Oct 12, 2007, at 01:37:23, Al Boldi wrote:But why do you need to add "lockout prevention" if it already exists? With CFS' extremely efficient per-user-scheduling (hopefully soon to be the default) there are only two forms of lockout by non- root processes: (1) Running out of PIDs in the box's PID-space (think tens or hundreds of thousands of processes), or (2) Swap- storming the box to death. To put it bluntly trying to reserve free PID slots is attacking the wrong end of the problem and your so called "lockout prevention" could very easily ensure that 10 PIDs are available even if the user has swapstormed the box with the PIDs he does have. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -
| Jens Axboe | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki | Re: 2.6.24-rc3-mm1 |
| Ingo Molnar | Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS] |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: Data corruption issue with splice() on 2.6.27.10 |
| Patrick McHardy | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
