Re: [PATCH 2/5] Revert "oom: give the dying task a higher priority"
From: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
Date: Mon Mar 28 2011 - 09:56:19 EST
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 03:18:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
| On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 10:10 -0300, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
| > | 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
|
| CFS has never used rt.time_slice, that's always been a pure SCHED_RR
| thing.
|
| > Peter, would that be effective to boost the priority of the dying task?
|
| The thing you're currently doing, making it SCHED_FIFO ?
I meant the p->rt.time_slice line, but you already answered my question.
Thanks :)
| > I mean, in the context of SCHED_OTHER tasks would it really help the dying
| > task to be scheduled sooner to release its resources?
|
| That very much depends on how all this stuff works, I guess if everybody
| serializes on OOM and only the first will actually kill a task and all
| the waiting tasks will try to allocate a page again before also doing
| the OOM thing, and the pending tasks are woken after the OOM target task
| has completed dying.. then I don't see much point in boosting things,
| since everybody interested in memory will block and eventually only the
| dying task will be left running.
|
| Its been a very long while since I stared at the OOM code..
|
| > If so, as we remove
| > the code in commit 93b43fa5508 we should re-add that old code.
|
| It doesn't make any sense to fiddle with rt.time_slice afaict.
---end quoted text---
--
[ 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/