Re: [RFC] oom-kill: give the dying task a higher priority

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> 
> > > > @@ -291,9 +309,10 @@ static struct task_struct *select_bad_process(unsigned long *ppoints,
> > > >  		 * Otherwise we could get an easy OOM deadlock.
> > > >  		 */
> > > >  		if (p->flags & PF_EXITING) {
> > > > -			if (p != current)
> > > > +			if (p != current) {
> > > > +				boost_dying_task_prio(p, mem);
> > > >  				return ERR_PTR(-1UL);
> > > > -
> > > > +			}
> > > >  			chosen = p;
> > > >  			*ppoints = ULONG_MAX;
> > > >  		}
> > > 
> > > This has the potential to actually make it harder to free memory if p is 
> > > waiting to acquire a writelock on mm->mmap_sem in the exit path while the 
> > > thread holding mm->mmap_sem is trying to run.
> > 
> > if p is waiting, changing prio have no effect. It continue tol wait to release mmap_sem.
> > 
> 
> And that can reduce the runtime of the thread holding a writelock on 
> mm->mmap_sem, making the exit actually take longer than without the patch 
> if its priority is significantly higher, especially on smaller machines.

If p need mmap_sem, p is going to sleep to wait mmap_sem. if p doesn't,
quickly exit is good thing. In other word, task fairness is not our goal
when oom occur.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/