[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 0/2] Disable Android low memory killer

[Gore, Tim]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch] On Behalf Of Daniel
> Vetter
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 3:55 PM
> To: Gore, Tim
> Cc: Daniel Vetter; intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 0/2] Disable Android low memory killer
> 
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 01:47:49PM +0000, Gore, Tim wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch] On Behalf Of
> > > Daniel Vetter
> > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:35 PM
> > > To: Gore, Tim
> > > Cc: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 0/2] Disable Android low memory
> > > killer
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 01:34:29PM +0100, tim.gore at intel.com wrote:
> > > > From: Tim Gore <tim.gore at intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > For some tests that put pressure on memory, the Android
> > > > lowmemorykiller needs to be disabled for the test to run to
> > > > completion. The first patch is a simple bit of preparation to
> > > > ensure that all (well written) "simple" tests exit via a call to
> > > > igt_exit, in the same way as tests with subtests do.
> > > > This is to make sure we can clean up by re-enabling the
> > > > lowmemorykiller.
> > > > The second patch is to disable the Android lowmemorykiller during
> > > > the common initialisation code (in oom_adjust_for_doom to be
> > > > exact) and to re-enstate it in igt_exit.
> > > >
> > > > v1: As above
> > > >
> > > > v2: Remove the call to disable the lowmemorykiller from
> > > >     oom_adjust_for_doom. lowmemorykiller is not disabled
> > > >     by default now; it is up to each individual test to
> > > >     call low_mem_killer_disable() if it needs to.
> > >
> > > See my late replies (I was off for an extended w/e). Summary:
> > > - I think we should just do this unconditionally since it's a hack and
> > >   pointless to burden tests with it.
> > > - proper exit handler and you can gc patch 1.
> > >
> > > Cheers, Daniel
> >
> >So should I re-submit v1 of my second patch, to disable the
      lowmemorykiller by default?

         Tim