RE: [PATCH] Patch to Memory Subsystem ... (Needed?)
Brian Schau (bsc@fleggaard.dk)
Tue, 10 Nov 1998 15:08:23 +0100
> Keeping significant amounts of memory free just-in-case seems
> pointless.
>
>
> ----> Correct. And too many people have gotten the wrong impression
> (which, unfortunately, is my fault!).
> My patch works on the "grand total" of free memory, swap as well as
> physical. Not just physical memory ...............
> So, add an extra Mb to you swapspace (or swapfile) and you're set!
>
> Keeping *virtual* memory free (in other words, reserving
> swap space) to make sure that root can start more processes may make
> sense. Providing resident set limits and guarantees to make sure that
> new root processes can run if they want to even under memory load
> makes
> sense. But simply keeping physical memory free doesn't seem to be a
> good idea: it's just too high a price for things we can achieve using
> different means.
>
> --Stephen
-
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/