Re: [PATCH 2/5] Revert "oom: give the dying task a higher priority"

[Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:10:29AM -0300, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 09:40:25PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> | On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 02:28:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> | > On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 21:21 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> | > > Hi Peter,
> | > > 
> | > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:51:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> | > > > On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 00:27 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> | > > > > 
> | > > > > 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. 
> | > > > 
> | > > > Probably lost somewhere in the mess that is my inbox :/, what is the
> | > > > full question?
> | > > 
> | > > The question is we had a routine which change rt.time_slice with HZ to 
> | > > accelarate task exit. But when we applied 93b43fa5508, we found it isn't effective
> | > > any more about normal task. So we removed it. Is it right?
> | > 
> | > rt.time_slice is only relevant to SCHED_RR, since you seem to use
> | > SCHED_FIFO (which runs for as long as the task is runnable), its
> | > completely irrelevant.
> | > 
> | > > And Kosaki is about to revert 93b43fa5508 to find out the problem of this thread
> | > > and Luis said he has a another solution to replace 93b43fa5508. 
> | > > If rt.time_slice handleing is effective, we should restore it until Luis's patch
> | > > will be merged.
> | > 
> | > Right, so only SCHED_RR is affected by time_slice, it will be
> | > decremented on tick (so anything that avoids ticks will also avoid the
> | > decrement) and once it reaches 0 the task will be queued at the tail of
> | > its static priority and reset the slice. If there is no other task on
> | > that same priority we'll again schedule that task.
> | > 
> | > In short, don't use SCHED_RR and don't worry about time_slice.
> | 
> | There was meaningless code in there. I guess it was in there from CFS.
> | Thanks for the explanation, Peter.
> 
> Yes, it was CFS related:

I think it wasn't related CFS but O(1).
I guess as we changed O(1) with CFS, the fault was remained.

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim