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@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