On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 01:47:49PM +0000, Gore, Tim wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel > > Vetter > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:35 PM > > To: Gore, Tim > > Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Disable Android low memory killer > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 01:34:29PM +0100, tim.gore@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Tim Gore <tim.gore@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > For some tests that put pressure on memory, the Android > > > lowmemorykiller needs to be disabled for the test to run to > > > completion. The first patch is a simple bit of preparation to ensure > > > that all (well written) "simple" tests exit via a call to igt_exit, in > > > the same way as tests with subtests do. > > > This is to make sure we can clean up by re-enabling the > > > lowmemorykiller. > > > The second patch is to disable the Android lowmemorykiller during the > > > common initialisation code (in oom_adjust_for_doom to be exact) and to > > > re-enstate it in igt_exit. > > > > > > v1: As above > > > > > > v2: Remove the call to disable the lowmemorykiller from > > > oom_adjust_for_doom. lowmemorykiller is not disabled > > > by default now; it is up to each individual test to > > > call low_mem_killer_disable() if it needs to. > > > > See my late replies (I was off for an extended w/e). Summary: > > - I think we should just do this unconditionally since it's a hack and > > pointless to burden tests with it. > > - proper exit handler and you can gc patch 1. > > > > Cheers, Daniel > > OK. Igt already has an exit handler, although it just checks that igt_exit has been called, > and does not get installed for simple tests. Would you be OK with me extending this > exit handler to re-instate the low memory killer, or do want to keep the possibility of > simple tests calling exit() rather than igt_exit(). ? Oops, missed that the exit handler stuff doesn't work for simple tests. Yeah, in that case rolling out igt_exit for simple tests makes sense indeed. -Daniel > > I agree that the lowmemorykiller seems to be the problem, but don't feel confident > to go changing it yet. > > Tim > > > > > > Tim Gore (2): > > > lib/igt_core: make single/simple tests use igt_exit > > > lib/igt_core.c: add function to disable lowmemorykiller > > > > > > lib/igt_core.c | 79 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > lib/igt_core.h | 2 +- > > > tests/igt_simulation.c | 2 +- > > > 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > -- > > > 2.1.1 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > > > > -- > > Daniel Vetter > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
