From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9717A6B01C1 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 22:54:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.76]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o4S2sAP0009423 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 28 May 2010 11:54:10 +0900 Received: from smail (m6 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D95545DE50 for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 11:54:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.96]) by m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3158545DE4C for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 11:54:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09356E08002 for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 11:54:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.104]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A574F1DB8016 for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 11:54:08 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [RFC] oom-kill: give the dying task a higher priority In-Reply-To: <20100527183319.GA22313@redhat.com> References: <20100527180431.GP13035@uudg.org> <20100527183319.GA22313@redhat.com> Message-Id: <20100528090357.7DFB.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 11:54:07 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , David Rientjes , Mel Gorman , williams@redhat.com List-ID: Hi Luis, > On 05/27, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote: > > > > It sounds plausible giving the dying task an even higher priority to be > > sure it will be scheduled sooner and free the desired memory. > > As usual, I can't really comment the changes in oom logic, just minor > nits... > > > @@ -413,6 +415,8 @@ static void __oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p, int verbose) > > */ > > p->rt.time_slice = HZ; > > set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE); > > + param.sched_priority = MAX_RT_PRIO-1; > > + sched_setscheduler(p, SCHED_FIFO, ¶m); > > > > force_sig(SIGKILL, p); > > Probably sched_setscheduler_nocheck() makes more sense. > > Minor, but perhaps it would be a bit better to send SIGKILL first, > then raise its prio. I have no objection too. but I don't think Oleg's pointed thing is minor. Please send updated patch. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org