Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755529AbZALQ3t (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:29:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752645AbZALQ3l (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:29:41 -0500 Received: from tservice.net.ru ([195.178.208.66]:59693 "EHLO tservice.net.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752377AbZALQ3k (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:29:40 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:29:38 +0300 From: Evgeniy Polyakov To: Alan Cox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Linux killed Kenny, bastard! Message-ID: <20090112162938.GA22647@ioremap.net> References: <20090112153304.GA19995@ioremap.net> <20090112154922.6003750b@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090112155030.GA21063@ioremap.net> <20090112155239.5f677a17@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090112155615.GA21350@ioremap.net> <20090112161931.6203f96e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090112161931.6203f96e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1442 Lines: 31 On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:19:31PM +0000, Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote: > > Yes, it could be done. If inotify will not be killed itself, will be > > enabled in the config and daemon will be started. > > But right now there is no way to solve that task, in the long term this > > is a good idea to implement modulo security problems it may concern. > > It is perfectly soluble right now, use the existing /proc interface. If > you want to specifically victimise new tasks first then set everything > else with an adjust *against* being killed and new stuff will start off > as cannon fodder until classified. > > The name approach is the wrong way to handle this. It has no reflection > of heirarchy of process, targetting by users, containers etc.. > > In fact containers are probably the right way to do it Containers to solve oom-killer selection problem? :) Being more serious, I agree that having a simple name does not solve the problem if observed from any angle, but it is not the main goal. Patch solves oom-killer selection issue from likely the most commonly used case: when you know who should be checked and killed first when problem appears. -- Evgeniy Polyakov -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/