From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E364D6B0012 for ; Sun, 29 May 2011 21:21:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615DD3EE0C1 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 10:17:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AAAC45DE55 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 10:17:36 +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 33A8E45DD74 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 10:17:36 +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 28619E08001 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 10:17:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.134]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAD8D1DB8038 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 10:17:35 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4DE2F028.6020608@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 10:17:28 +0900 From: KOSAKI Motohiro MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] oom: don't kill random process References: <4DD61F80.1020505@jp.fujitsu.com> <4DD6207E.1070300@jp.fujitsu.com> <4DDB0B45.2080507@jp.fujitsu.com> <4DDB1028.7000600@jp.fujitsu.com> <4DDB11F4.2070903@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: rientjes@google.com Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, caiqian@redhat.com, hughd@google.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, minchan.kim@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com > I'm afraid that a second time through the tasklist in select_bad_process() > is simply a non-starter for _any_ case; it significantly increases the > amount of time that tasklist_lock is held and causes problems elsewhere on > large systems -- such as some of ours -- since irqs are disabled while > waiting for the writeside of the lock. I think it would be better to use > a proportional privilege for root processes based on the amount of memory > they are using (discounting 1% of memory per 10% of memory used, as > proposed earlier, seems sane) so we can always protect root when necessary > and never iterate through the list again. > > Please look into the earlier review comments on the other patches, refresh > the series, and post it again. Thanks! Never mind. You never see to increase tasklist_lock. You never seen all processes have root privilege case. -- 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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org