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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:39:54 +0300
From:   Vladimir Davydov <>
To:     Roman Gushchin <>
Cc:, Tejun Heo <>,
        Johannes Weiner <>,
        Li Zefan <>,
        Michal Hocko <>,
        Tetsuo Handa <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/7] mm, oom: introduce oom_score_adj for memory

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 07:35:13PM +0100, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Introduce a per-memory-cgroup oom_score_adj setting.
> A read-write single value file which exits on non-root
> cgroups. The default is "0".
> It will have a similar meaning to a per-process value,
> available via /proc/<pid>/oom_score_adj.
> Should be in a range [-1000, 1000].

IMHO OOM scoring (not only the user API, but the logic as well) should
be introduced by a separate patch following the main one (#6) in the
series. Rationale: we might want to commit the main patch right away,
while postponing OOM scoring for later, because some people might find
the API controversial and needing a further, deeper discussion.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists