On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 03:18:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: | 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 meant the p->rt.time_slice line, but you already answered my question. Thanks :) | > 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. ---end quoted text--- -- [ Luis Claudio R. Goncalves Red Hat - Realtime Team ] [ Fingerprint: 4FDD B8C4 3C59 34BD 8BE9 2696 7203 D980 A448 C8F8 ] -- 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>