On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 06:48:13PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > 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. :) I don't mind it, either. :) I just want to make sure the meaningless logic. Thanks. -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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>