[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100601085006.f732c049.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:50:06 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
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
On Mon, 31 May 2010 10:52:27 -0300
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org> wrote:
> | If an explanation as "acceralating all thread's priority in a process seems overkill"
> | is given in changelog or comment, it's ok to me.
>
> If my understanding of badness() is right, I wouldn't be ashamed of saying
> that it seems to be _a bit_ overkill. But I may be wrong in my
> interpretation.
>
> While re-reading the code I noticed that in select_bad_process() we can
> eventually bump on an already dying task, case in which we just wait for
> the task to die and avoid killing other tasks. Maybe we could boost the
> priority of the dying task here too.
>
yes, nice catch.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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