[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100528090357.7DFB.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 11:54:07 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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
Hi Luis,
> 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.
I have no objection too. but I don't think Oleg's pointed thing is minor.
Please send updated patch.
Thanks.
--
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