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@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>