Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946050AbXBPTEZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:04:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1946053AbXBPTEZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:04:25 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortel.com ([47.129.242.57]:51322 "EHLO zcars04f.nortel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946050AbXBPTEY (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:04:24 -0500 Message-ID: <45D6001E.1020605@nortel.com> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:03:58 -0600 From: "Chris Friesen" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-6 (X11/20050513) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: misleading comment in __oom_kill_task()? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2007 19:04:07.0215 (UTC) FILETIME=[3B9E3BF0:01C751FD] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 984 Lines: 28 Towards the end of __oom_kill_task() we see the following comment/code: /* * We give our sacrificial lamb high priority and access to * all the memory it needs. That way it should be able to * exit() and clear out its resources quickly... */ p->time_slice = HZ; set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_MEMDIE); force_sig(SIGKILL, p); I see it getting a large timeslice and access to memory, but I don't actually see the priority getting bumped at all. It appears the comment is inaccurate. Should the process actually get its priority bumped up as well so that it can process its own death faster? The reason I ask is that we're seeing some oom-killed processes taking a very long time (multiple seconds) to actually die. Chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/