Re: kswapd is killable

Rik van Riel (riel@humbolt.geo.uu.nl)
Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:26:51 +0100 (CET)

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/