Re: 2.1.39 The next in the "locking series"
Rogier Wolff (R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl)
Sun, 25 May 1997 10:37:52 +0200 (MET DST)
Russell Coker - mailing lists account wrote:
>
> These control the amount of free kernel memory that is available. If
> the kernel runs out of free memory while performing certain operations it
> will crash or behave very badly (it does things such as not responding to
> pings etc). If the kernel has a lot of free memory then memory is being
> wasted and your system will not perform optimally. Having the right amount
> of free kernel memory is crucial to correct and efficient kernel operation.
Ehhmmmm. By the way, I've always wanted to know: Instead of keeping
memory "Free" why not keep memory "free-able". That means that
it can be freed in a "flick".
If the kernel keeps a few "buffer blocks" on a special list which
means that it can free them without any consequenses (*), that would
be "close enough to free" wouldn't it? Or a read-only page of code
from a process. Those can be freed at will too.
What's wrong with my thinking here?
Roger.
(*) i.e. they are not dirty.