I've often wondered why swap doesn't have a root-only x% like the file system.
Once the swap used reached 100% user processes would bomb but a root process
could go ahead and use the secret x%.
Another idea would be to have multiple swap files and implement a way to
restrict one swap area to a s
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:40:50PM -0400, David Schultz wrote:
> Using madvise doesn't require changes per app, since MADV_PROTECT
> is inherited across exec. You just have to write a wrapper, much
> in the spirit of nice(1), to execute a protected version of X.
Hmm, that's new to me, but certain
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005, Steven Hartland wrote:
> - Original Message -
> >There is no "large process detection". The first process that tries
> >to fault in a new page after the system runs out of swap gets killed.
>
> That makes sense. Me trying to connect to see what was going
> on would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That makes sense. Me trying to connect to see what was going
> on would hence cause sshd to be killed ( not good ).
> It would seem that we could do with doing something to prevent
> this.
> We have had a few suggestions so far.
> 1. Using madvise, requires code changes
On Tue, 2005-Apr-12 05:24:15 -0700, ALeine wrote:
> Having a flag to tag processes as vital to prevent them from getting
>killed (or to give them lower next-to-be-killed priority so that all non-vital
>processes get killed first) when you run out of swap would be a useful feature,
>what do you guys
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:37:52AM -0700, ALeine wrote:
> > Are you suggesting that vm_pageout_pmap_collect() is no longer in
> > use ?
> >
> > That has a FOREACH_PROC_IN_SYSTEM(p) ... find biggest unlocked
> > ...
> > kill-kill-kill...
>
> The largest process gets killed in vm_pageout_scan() acc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:46:45PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav
> wrote:
> > There is no "large process detection". The first process that
> > tries to fault in a new page after the system runs out of swap
> > gets killed.
>
> Are you suggesting that vm_pageout_pmap_coll
At 6:46 PM +0200 4/12/05, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
"Steven Hartland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thanks for the feedback seems very strange that sshd was the first thing the
kernel killed off; so unless it was actually
at fault ( would be very strange )
it would have been one of the smallest
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:46:45PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> There is no "large process detection". The first process that tries
> to fault in a new page after the system runs out of swap gets killed.
Are you suggesting that vm_pageout_pmap_collect() is no longer in use ?
That has a FOR
- Original Message -
There is no "large process detection". The first process that tries
to fault in a new page after the system runs out of swap gets killed.
That makes sense. Me trying to connect to see what was going
on would hence cause sshd to be killed ( not good ).
It would seem th
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:46:45PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> There is no "large process detection". The first process that tries
> to fault in a new page after the system runs out of swap gets killed.
Which sucks when a process like X tries to free and realloc things when
possible and tr
"Steven Hartland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for the feedback seems very strange that sshd was the first thing the
> kernel killed off; so unless it was actually at fault ( would be very strange
> )
> it would have been one of the smallest not largest processes.
> The box has runs severa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It would be more appropriate if such processes use the mlockall(2) call
> for the time being.
Speaking of mlockall(2), almost two weeks ago when I posted here about
CGD (and GBDE) memory allocation bugs I sent the attached patch for
src/sbin/gbde/gbde.c to PHK, but sinc
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 05:24:15AM -0700, ALeine wrote:
> > machine. Having a flag to tag processes as vital to prevent them from
> > getting
> > killed (or to give them lower next-to-be-killed priority so that all
> > non-vital
> > processes get kil
Thanks for the feedback seems very strange that sshd was the first thing the
kernel killed off; so unless it was actually at fault ( would be very strange )
it would have been one of the smallest not largest processes.
The box has runs several 200M+ process and more 100M+ where
as sshd is usually 6
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 05:24:15AM -0700, ALeine wrote:
> machine. Having a flag to tag processes as vital to prevent them from getting
> killed (or to give them lower next-to-be-killed priority so that all non-vital
> processes get killed first) when you run out of swap would be a useful
> featur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Just had a problem with a box where it looks like it ran out of
> swap due to a problem process, not a problem. The problem was that it
> seems the kernel on detecting this starts killing off seeming random
> processes, the first one being sshd hence making the machine
Just had a problem with a box where it looks like it ran out of swap due
to a problem process, not a problem. The problem was that it seems
the kernel on detecting this starts killing off seeming random processes,
the first one being sshd hence making the machine inaccessible.
So the question is: D
18 matches
Mail list logo
