[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101109195726.BC9E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 20:01:33 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
"Figo.zhang" <zhangtianfei@...dcoretech.com>,
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: [PATCH v2]oom-kill: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE should get bonus
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2010, Figo.zhang wrote:
>
> > > > CAP_SYS_RESOURCE also had better get 3% bonus for protection.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Would you like to elaborate as to why?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > process with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE capibility which have system resource
> > limits, like journaling resource on ext3/4 filesystem, RTC clock. so it
> > also the same treatment as process with CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
> >
>
> NACK, there's no justification that these tasks should be given a 3%
> memory bonus in the oom killer heuristic; in fact, since they can allocate
> without limits it is more important to target these tasks if they are
> using an egregious amount of memory. CAP_SYS_RESOURCE threads have the
> ability to lower their own oom_score_adj values, thus, they should protect
> themselves if necessary like everything else.
David, Stupid are YOU. you removed CAP_SYS_RESOURCE condition with ZERO
explanation and Figo reported a regression. That's enough the reason to
undo. YOU have a guilty to explain why do you want to change and why
do you think it has justification.
Don't blame bug reporter. That's completely wrong.
--
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