linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20090127193058.D48B.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:40:58 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller

Hi Evgeniy,

> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:51:27PM -0800, David Rientjes (rientjes@...gle.com) wrote:
> > Yeah, I proposed /dev/mem_notify being made as a client of cgroups there 
> > in http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123200623628685
> > 
> > How do you replace the oom killer's capability of giving a killed task 
> > access to memory reserves with TIF_MEMDIE in userspace?
> 
> /dev/mem_notify is a great idea, but please do not limit existing
> oom-killer in its ability to do the job and do not rely on application's
> ability to send a SIGKILL which will not kill tasks in unkillable state
> contrary to oom-killer.

I'd like to respect your requiremnt. but I also would like to know
why you like deterministic hierarchy oom than notification.

I think one of problem is, current patch description is a bit poor
and don't describe from administrator view.

Could you please sort the discssion out and explain your requirement detail?
otherwise (I guess) this discussion don't reach people agreement.

I don't like the implementation idea vs another idea discussion.
it often don't make productive discussion.
I'd like to sort out people requrement.
otherwise I can't review the patch fill requirement or not.



--
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/