[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090715212657.aa85089a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:26:57 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are
isolated already (v3)
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:09:05 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> > If we were to step back and approach this in a broader fashion, perhaps
> > we would find some commonality with the existing TIF_MEMDIE handling,
> > dunno.
>
> Good point - what is it that makes TIF_MEMDIE special
> wrt. other fatal signals, anyway?
>
> I wonder if we should not simply "help along" any task
> with fatal signals pending, anywhere in the VM (and maybe
> other places in the kernel, too).
>
> The faster we get rid of a killed process, the sooner its
> resources become available to the other processes.
Spose so.
Are their any known (or makeable uppable) situations in which such a
change would be beneficial? Maybe if the system is in a hopeless
swapstorm and someone is killing processes in an attempt to get control
back.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists