[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1011031952110.28251@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 19:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: "Figo.zhang" <zhangtianfei@...dcoretech.com>
cc: figo zhang <figo1802@...il.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: Re:[PATCH v2]oom-kill: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE should get bonus
On Thu, 4 Nov 2010, Figo.zhang wrote:
> In your new heuristic, you also get CAP_SYS_RESOURCE to protection.
> see fs/proc/base.c, line 1167:
> if (oom_score_adj < task->signal->oom_score_adj &&
> !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
> err = -EACCES;
> goto err_sighand;
> }
That's unchanged from the old behavior with oom_adj.
> so i want to protect some process like normal process not
> CAP_SYS_RESOUCE, i set a small oom_score_adj , if new oom_score_adj is
> small than now and it is not limited resource, it will not adjust, that
> seems not right?
>
Tasks without CAP_SYS_RESOURCE cannot lower their own oom_score_adj,
otherwise it can trivially kill other tasks. They can, however, increase
their own oom_score_adj so the oom killer prefers to kill it first.
I think you may be confused: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE override resource limits.
--
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