From: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@uudg.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] oom: give the dying task a higher priority
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:54:47 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100616195447.GH5009@uudg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100616153120.GH9278@barrios-desktop>
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:31:20AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
| > /*
| > * 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...
| > */
| > p->rt.time_slice = HZ;
| > set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
...
| > + if (rt_task(p)) {
| > + p->rt.time_slice = HZ;
| > + return;
I am not sure the code above will have any real effect for an RT task.
Kosaki-san, was this change motivated by test results or was it just a code
cleanup? I ask that out of curiosity.
| I have a question from long time ago.
| If we change rt.time_slice _without_ setscheduler, is it effective?
| I mean scheduler pick up the task faster than other normal task?
$ git log --pretty=oneline -Stime_slice mm/oom_kill.c
1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 Linux-2.6.12-rc2
This code ("time_slice = HZ;") is around for quite a while and
probably comes from a time where having a big time slice was enough to be
sure you would be the next on the line. I would say sched_setscheduler is
indeed necessary.
Regards,
Luis
--
[ Luis Claudio R. Goncalves Red Hat - Realtime Team ]
[ Fingerprint: 4FDD B8C4 3C59 34BD 8BE9 2696 7203 D980 A448 C8F8 ]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@uudg.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] oom: give the dying task a higher priority
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:54:47 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100616195447.GH5009@uudg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100616153120.GH9278@barrios-desktop>
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:31:20AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
| > /*
| > * 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...
| > */
| > p->rt.time_slice = HZ;
| > set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE);
...
| > + if (rt_task(p)) {
| > + p->rt.time_slice = HZ;
| > + return;
I am not sure the code above will have any real effect for an RT task.
Kosaki-san, was this change motivated by test results or was it just a code
cleanup? I ask that out of curiosity.
| I have a question from long time ago.
| If we change rt.time_slice _without_ setscheduler, is it effective?
| I mean scheduler pick up the task faster than other normal task?
$ git log --pretty=oneline -Stime_slice mm/oom_kill.c
1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 Linux-2.6.12-rc2
This code ("time_slice = HZ;") is around for quite a while and
probably comes from a time where having a big time slice was enough to be
sure you would be the next on the line. I would say sched_setscheduler is
indeed necessary.
Regards,
Luis
--
[ 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@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-16 19:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-16 11:29 [PATCH 1/9] oom: don't try to kill oom_unkillable child KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:29 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:31 ` [PATCH 2/9] oom: rename badness() to oom_badness() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:31 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 14:46 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 14:46 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 21:40 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-16 21:40 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:32 ` [PATCH 3/9] oom: oom_kill_process() doesn't select kthread child KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:32 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:02 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 15:02 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:32 ` [PATCH 4/9] oom: oom_kill_process() need to check p is unkillable KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:32 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:07 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 15:07 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:33 ` [PATCH 5/9] oom: make oom_unkillable_task() helper function KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:33 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:10 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 15:10 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 11:34 ` [PATCH 6/9] oom: use same_thread_group instead comparing ->mm KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:34 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 12:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-16 12:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:15 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 15:15 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:34 ` [PATCH 7/9] oom: unify CAP_SYS_RAWIO check into other superuser check KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:34 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:35 ` [PATCH 8/9] oom: cleanup has_intersects_mems_allowed() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:22 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 15:22 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 11:36 ` [PATCH 9/9] oom: give the dying task a higher priority KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 11:36 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 15:31 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 15:31 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 19:54 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves [this message]
2010-06-16 19:54 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-16 14:41 ` [PATCH 1/9] oom: don't try to kill oom_unkillable child Minchan Kim
2010-06-16 14:41 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-17 1:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100616195447.GH5009@uudg.org \
--to=lclaudio@uudg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.