[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100617084811.FB42.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:51:35 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] oom: give the dying task a higher priority
> > + struct sched_param param = { .sched_priority = 1 };
> > +
> > + if (mem)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (rt_task(p)) {
> > + p->rt.time_slice = HZ;
> > + return;
>
> I have a question from long time ago.
> If we change rt.time_slice _without_ setscheduler, is it effective?
> I mean scheduler pick up the task faster than other normal task?
if p is SCHED_OTHER, no effective. if my understand is correct, that's
only meaningfull if p is SCHED_RR. that's the reason why I moved this
check into "if (rt_task())".
but honestly I haven't observed this works effectively. so, I agree
this can be removed as Luis mentioned.
--
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