From: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@uudg.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] Revert "oom: give the dying task a higher priority"
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:10:29 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110328131029.GN19007@uudg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110328124025.GC1892@barrios-desktop>
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:
p = find_lock_task_mm(p);
...
p->rt.time_slice = HZ; <<---- THIS
Peter, would that be effective to boost the priority of the dying task?
I mean, in the context of SCHED_OTHER tasks would it really help the dying
task to be scheduled sooner to release its resources? If so, as we remove
the code in commit 93b43fa5508 we should re-add that old code.
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-28 13:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20110314232156.0c363813.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
[not found] ` <20110315153801.3526.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
2011-03-22 11:04 ` [patch 0/5] oom: a few anti fork bomb patches KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 11:05 ` [PATCH 1/5] vmscan: remove all_unreclaimable check from direct reclaim path completely KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 14:49 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23 5:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23 6:59 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23 7:13 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23 8:24 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23 8:44 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23 9:02 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24 2:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24 2:21 ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-24 2:48 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24 3:04 ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-24 5:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24 4:19 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24 5:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24 5:53 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24 6:16 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24 6:32 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24 7:03 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24 7:25 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24 7:28 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24 7:34 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24 7:41 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24 7:43 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24 7:43 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23 7:41 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-23 7:55 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 11:06 ` [PATCH 2/5] Revert "oom: give the dying task a higher priority" KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23 7:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-23 13:40 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2011-03-24 0:06 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24 15:27 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28 9:48 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-28 12:28 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28 9:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-28 12:21 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28 12:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-28 12:40 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28 13:10 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves [this message]
2011-03-28 13:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-28 13:56 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2011-03-29 2:46 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-28 13:48 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-22 11:08 ` [PATCH 3/5] oom: create oom autogroup KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 23:21 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23 1:27 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23 2:41 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-03-22 11:08 ` [PATCH 4/5] mm: introduce wait_on_page_locked_killable KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23 7:44 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-24 15:04 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-22 11:09 ` [PATCH 5/5] x86,mm: make pagefault killable KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23 7:49 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-23 8:09 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23 14:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-03-24 15:10 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24 17:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-03-24 17:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-03-28 7:00 ` 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=20110328131029.GN19007@uudg.org \
--to=lclaudio@uudg.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=avagin@openvz.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--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=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).