From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07CA36B00AB for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:26:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 12:24:37 +0000 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH v2]oom-kill: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE should get bonus Message-ID: <20101109122437.2e0d71fd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20101109195726.BC9E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <1288834737.2124.11.camel@myhost> <20101109195726.BC9E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro , "Figo.zhang" Cc: David Rientjes , figo zhang , lkml , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton List-ID: > > > 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. > > 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. Can people stop throwing things at each other and worry about the facts - If it's a regression it should get reverted or fixed. But is it actually a regression ? Has the underlying behaviour changed in a problematic way? "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." The reverse can be argued equally - that they can unprotect themselves if necessary. In fact it seems to be a "point of view" sort of question which way you deal with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE, and that to me argues that changing from old expected behaviour to a new behaviour is a regression. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org