[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1006031327480.10856@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.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>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, williams@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] oom-kill: give the dying task a higher priority
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > And that can reduce the runtime of the thread holding a writelock on
> > mm->mmap_sem, making the exit actually take longer than without the patch
> > if its priority is significantly higher, especially on smaller machines.
>
> /me smells an inversion... on -rt we solved those ;-)
>
Right, but I don't see how increasing an oom killed tasks priority to a
divine priority doesn't impact the priorities of other tasks which may be
blocking the exit of that task, namely a coredumper or holder of
mm->mmap_sem. This patch also doesn't address how it negatively impacts
the priorities of jobs running in different cpusets (although sharing the
same cpus) because one cpuset is oom.
--
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