Re: [PATCH] Reserve N process to root

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Kyle Moffett
Date: Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 10:49 pm

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
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH] Reserve N process to root, Al Boldi, (Thu Oct 11, 2:02 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Reserve N process to root, Kyle Moffett, (Thu Oct 11, 7:42 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Reserve N process to root, Al Boldi, (Thu Oct 11, 10:37 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Reserve N process to root, Kyle Moffett, (Thu Oct 11, 10:49 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Reserve N process to root, Al Boldi, (Thu Oct 11, 11:29 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Reserve N process to root, Gustavo Chain, (Fri Oct 12, 6:34 pm)
Re: [PATCH] Reserve N process to root, Al Boldi, (Fri Oct 12, 10:01 pm)