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

[Minchan Kim]

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
--
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/