Hi > @@ -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@xxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>