From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E2986B00D5 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 06:01:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id oA9B1aiU018828 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 9 Nov 2010 20:01:36 +0900 Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9217F45DE53 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 20:01:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44CF645DE51 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 20:01:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1881DB8043 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 20:01:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.106]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FC11DB8049 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 20:01:33 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH v2]oom-kill: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE should get bonus In-Reply-To: References: <1288834737.2124.11.camel@myhost> Message-Id: <20101109195726.BC9E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 20:01:33 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, "Figo.zhang" , figo zhang , lkml , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton List-ID: > 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, 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