[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100527183319.GA22313@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 20:33:19 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, williams@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] oom-kill: give the dying task a higher priority
On 05/27, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
>
> It sounds plausible giving the dying task an even higher priority to be
> sure it will be scheduled sooner and free the desired memory.
As usual, I can't really comment the changes in oom logic, just minor
nits...
> @@ -413,6 +415,8 @@ static void __oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p, int verbose)
> */
> p->rt.time_slice = HZ;
> set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
> + param.sched_priority = MAX_RT_PRIO-1;
> + sched_setscheduler(p, SCHED_FIFO, ¶m);
>
> force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
Probably sched_setscheduler_nocheck() makes more sense.
Minor, but perhaps it would be a bit better to send SIGKILL first,
then raise its prio.
Oleg.
--
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