linux-kernel - question on comment in __oom_kill

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4611414A.3050606@nortel.com>
Date:	Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:45:46 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: question on comment in __oom_kill_task()

In __oom_kill_task(), there is a comment that says,

"We give our sacrificial lamb high priority and access to all the memory 
it needs. That way it should be able to exit() and clear out its 
resources quickly..."

However, we don't actually change the priority at that point, we just 
give it a large timeslice.

Would it make sense to actually change the priority/policy using 
sched_setscheduler() to give the process a deeply negative nice level or 
maybe even make it realtime?

This seems to help on some of our OOM stress tests.

Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/