From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 58EE36B01B2 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 14:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 20:33:19 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [RFC] oom-kill: give the dying task a higher priority Message-ID: <20100527183319.GA22313@redhat.com> References: <20100527180431.GP13035@uudg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100527180431.GP13035@uudg.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , KOSAKI Motohiro , David Rientjes , Mel Gorman , williams@redhat.com List-ID: On 05/27, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote: > > It sounds plausible giving the dying task an even higher priority to be > sure it will be scheduled sooner and free the desired memory. As usual, I can't really comment the changes in oom logic, just minor nits... > @@ -413,6 +415,8 @@ static void __oom_kill_task(struct task_struct *p, int verbose) > */ > p->rt.time_slice = HZ; > set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE); > + param.sched_priority = MAX_RT_PRIO-1; > + sched_setscheduler(p, SCHED_FIFO, ¶m); > > force_sig(SIGKILL, p); Probably sched_setscheduler_nocheck() makes more sense. Minor, but perhaps it would be a bit better to send SIGKILL first, then raise its prio. Oleg. -- 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