Re: [PATCH 2/5] Revert "oom: give the dying task a higher priority"
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <hidden>
Date: 2011-03-28 09:48:19
Also in:
lkml
Hi
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -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. :) -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>