lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/5] Revert "oom: give the dying task a higher priority"
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 06:48:13PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi
>
> > @@ -434,9 +452,17 @@ static int oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p)
> > K(get_mm_counter(p->mm, MM_FILEPAGES)));
> > task_unlock(p);
> >
> > - p->rt.time_slice = HZ; <<---- THIS
> > +
> > set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
> > force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * We give our sacrificial lamb high priority and access to
> > + * all the memory it needs. That way it should be able to
> > + * exit() and clear out its resources quickly...
> > + */
> > + boost_dying_task_prio(p, mem);
> > +
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > At that time, I thought that routine is meaningless in non-RT scheduler.
> > So I Cced Peter but don't get the answer.
> > I just want to confirm it.
> >
> > Do you still think it's meaningless?
>
> In short, yes.
>
>
> > so you remove it when you revert 93b43fa5508?
> > Then, this isn't just revert patch but revert + killing meaningless code patch.
>
> If you want, I'd like to rename a patch title. That said, we can't revert
> 93b43fa5508 simple cleanly, several patches depend on it. therefore I
> reverted it manualy. and at that time, I don't want to resurrect
> meaningless logic. anyway it's no matter. Luis is preparing new patches.
> therefore we will get the same end result. :)

I don't mind it, either. :)
I just want to make sure the meaningless logic.
Thanks.

--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-28 14:31    [W:0.078 / U:0.396 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site