Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:47:37 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>
Cc: vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, jgarzik@pobox.com,
       akpm@osdl.org, brettspamacct@fastclick.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ~500 megs cached yet 2.6.5 goes into swap hell
Message-Id: <20040429144737.3b0c736b.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <409175CF.9040608@techsource.com>
References: <40904A84.2030307@yahoo.com.au>
	<200404292001.i3TK1BYe005147@eeyore.valparaiso.cl>
	<20040429133613.791f9f9b.pj@sgi.com>
	<409175CF.9040608@techsource.com>
Organization: SGI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 725
Lines: 19

Timothy wrote:
> Perhaps nice level could influence how much a process is allowed to 
> affect page cache.

I'm from the school that says 'nice' applies to scheduling priority,
not memory usage.

I'd expect a different knob, a per-task inherited value as is 'nice',
to control memory usage.

-- 
                          I won't rest till it's the best ...
                          Programmer, Linux Scalability
                          Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/