From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791876B0212 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 03:50:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [RFC] oom-kill: give the dying task a higher priority From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: References: <20100601173535.GD23428@uudg.org> <20100602220429.F51E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:50:49 +0200 Message-ID: <1275551449.27810.34905.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Minchan Kim , balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Oleg Nesterov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Thomas Gleixner , Mel Gorman , williams@redhat.com List-ID: On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 14:11 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: >=20 > And that can reduce the runtime of the thread holding a writelock on=20 > mm->mmap_sem, making the exit actually take longer than without the patch= =20 > if its priority is significantly higher, especially on smaller machines.=20 /me smells an inversion... on -rt we solved those ;-) -- 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: email@kvack.org