From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1BA486B01B0 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o61073m1010146 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:07:04 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7CAD45DE55 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:07:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.92]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA06245DE51 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:07:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B2151DB803C for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:07:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BBA01DB803A for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:07:03 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] oom: /proc//oom_score treat kernel thread honestly In-Reply-To: <20100630140328.GC15644@barrios-desktop> References: <20100630182922.AA56.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100630140328.GC15644@barrios-desktop> Message-Id: <20100701085309.DA16.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:07:02 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Minchan Kim Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:30:19PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > If kernel thread are using use_mm(), badness() return positive value. > > This is not big issue because caller care it correctly. but there is > > one exception, /proc//oom_score call badness() directly and > > don't care the task is regular process. > > > > another example, /proc/1/oom_score return !0 value. but it's unkillable. > > This incorrectness makes confusing to admin a bit. > > Hmm. If it is a really problem, Could we solve it in proc_oom_score itself? probably, no good idea. For maintainance view, all oom related code should be gathered in oom_kill.c. If you dislike to add messy into badness(), I hope to make badness_for_oom_score() or something like instead. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org