[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090112162938.GA22647@ioremap.net>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:29:38 +0300
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Linux killed Kenny, bastard!
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:19:31PM +0000, Alan Cox (alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote:
> > Yes, it could be done. If inotify will not be killed itself, will be
> > enabled in the config and daemon will be started.
> > But right now there is no way to solve that task, in the long term this
> > is a good idea to implement modulo security problems it may concern.
> 
> It is perfectly soluble right now, use the existing /proc interface. If
> you want to specifically victimise new tasks first then set everything
> else with an adjust *against* being killed and new stuff will start off
> as cannon fodder until classified.
> 
> The name approach is the wrong way to handle this. It has no reflection
> of heirarchy of process, targetting by users, containers etc.. 
> 
> In fact containers are probably the right way to do it
Containers to solve oom-killer selection problem? :)
Being more serious, I agree that having a simple name does not solve the
problem if observed from any angle, but it is not the main goal.
Patch solves oom-killer selection issue from likely the most commonly
used case: when you know who should be checked and killed first when
problem appears.
-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
