[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101130220107.8328.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:00:48 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.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>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2]mm/oom-kill: direct hardware access processes should get bonus
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> > > > > I think in cases of heuristics like this where we obviously want to give
> > > > > some bonus to CAP_SYS_ADMIN that there is consistency with other bonuses
> > > > > given elsewhere in the kernel.
> > > >
> > > > Keep comparision apple to apple. vm_enough_memory() account _virtual_ memory.
> > > > oom-killer try to free _physical_ memory. It's unrelated.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's not unrelated, the LSM function gives an arbitrary 3% bonus to
> > > CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
> >
> > Unrelated. LSM _is_ security module. and It only account virtual memory.
> >
>
> I needed a small bias for CAP_SYS_ADMIN tasks so I chose 3% since it's the
> same proportion used elsewhere in the kernel and works nicely since the
> badness score is now a proportion.
Why? Is this important than X?
> If you'd like to propose a different
> percentage or suggest removing the bias for root tasks altogether, feel
> free to propose a patch. Thanks!
I only need to revert bad change.
Thanks.
--
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