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 3F1018D0017 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:33:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from kpbe11.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe11.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.75]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id oAELXRnV009454 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:33:27 -0800 Received: from pwi9 (pwi9.prod.google.com [10.241.219.9]) by kpbe11.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id oAELXNVK031952 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:33:24 -0800 Received: by pwi9 with SMTP id 9so713694pwi.33 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:33:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:33:21 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH v3]mm/oom-kill: direct hardware access processes should get bonus In-Reply-To: <20101114141913.E019.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <1289402093.10699.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1289402666.10699.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20101114141913.E019.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: "Figo.zhang" , lkml , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , "Figo.zhang" List-ID: On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > the victim should not directly access hardware devices like Xorg server, > > because the hardware could be left in an unpredictable state, although > > user-application can set /proc/pid/oom_score_adj to protect it. so i think > > those processes should get bonus for protection. > > > > in v2, fix the incorrect comment. > > in v3, change the divided the badness score by 4, like old heuristic for protection. we just > > want the oom_killer don't select Root/RESOURCE/RAWIO process as possible. > > > > suppose that if a user process A such as email cleint "evolution" and a process B with > > ditecly hareware access such as "Xorg", they have eat the equal memory (the badness score is > > the same),so which process are you want to kill? so in new heuristic, it will kill the process B. > > but in reality, we want to kill process A. > > > > Signed-off-by: Figo.zhang > > Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro > > Sorry for the delay. I've sent completely revert patch to linus. It will > disappear your headache, I believe. I'm sorry that our development > caused your harm. We really don't want it. > Oh please, your dramatics are getting better and better. Figo.zhang never described a problem that was being addressed but rather proposed several different variants of a patch (some with CAP_SYS_ADMIN, some with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE, some with CAP_SYS_RAWIO, some with a combination, some with a 3% bonus, some with a order-of-2 bonus, etc) to return the same heuristic used in the old oom killer. I asked several times to show the oom killer log from the problematic behavior and none were presented. -- 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