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 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.

--
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>