Re: [PATCH 2/5] Revert "oom: give the dying task a higher priority"

[Luis Claudio R. Goncalves]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 09:40:25PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
| On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 02:28:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
| > On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 21:21 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
| > > Hi Peter,
| > > 
| > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:51:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
| > > > On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 00:27 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
| > > > > 
| > > > > 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. 
| > > > 
| > > > Probably lost somewhere in the mess that is my inbox :/, what is the
| > > > full question?
| > > 
| > > The question is we had a routine which change rt.time_slice with HZ to 
| > > accelarate task exit. But when we applied 93b43fa5508, we found it isn't effective
| > > any more about normal task. So we removed it. Is it right?
| > 
| > rt.time_slice is only relevant to SCHED_RR, since you seem to use
| > SCHED_FIFO (which runs for as long as the task is runnable), its
| > completely irrelevant.
| > 
| > > And Kosaki is about to revert 93b43fa5508 to find out the problem of this thread
| > > and Luis said he has a another solution to replace 93b43fa5508. 
| > > If rt.time_slice handleing is effective, we should restore it until Luis's patch
| > > will be merged.
| > 
| > Right, so only SCHED_RR is affected by time_slice, it will be
| > decremented on tick (so anything that avoids ticks will also avoid the
| > decrement) and once it reaches 0 the task will be queued at the tail of
| > its static priority and reset the slice. If there is no other task on
| > that same priority we'll again schedule that task.
| > 
| > In short, don't use SCHED_RR and don't worry about time_slice.
| 
| There was meaningless code in there. I guess it was in there from CFS.
| Thanks for the explanation, Peter.

Yes, it was CFS related:

	p = find_lock_task_mm(p);
	...
	p->rt.time_slice = HZ; <<---- THIS

Peter, would that be effective to boost the priority of the dying task?
I mean, in the context of SCHED_OTHER tasks would it really help the dying
task to be scheduled sooner to release its resources? If so, as we remove
the code in commit 93b43fa5508 we should re-add that old code.

Luis
-- 
[ Luis Claudio R. Goncalves             Red Hat  -  Realtime Team ]
[ Fingerprint: 4FDD B8C4 3C59 34BD 8BE9  2696 7203 D980 A448 C8F8 ]

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/