Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:26:51 +0100 (CET) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: kswapd is killable |
| |
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 asethman@mandate-inc.com wrote: > > > So basically a word of advice...if you don't want it dead > > don't be killing it...I guess there could be reasons as > > to why you'd want to kill kswapd. I can't think of any > > though. I guess if you want to defeat this "feature" > > Just #if 0 out the siginitsetinv line in mm/vmscan.c > > Not enough, without doing a flush_signals() at every kswapd loop you risk > a memory leakage (you never kfree sigqueue memory eventually allocated).
Then we should insert this call into the main loop of kswapd. System stability is simply more important than an extra 1% (probably less) overhead for kswapd.
Rik -- If a Microsoft product fails, who do you sue? +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Linux memory management tour guide. riel@nl.linux.org | | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.nl.linux.org/~riel | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |