Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757808AbZALXBm (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:01:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758673AbZALXBJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:01:09 -0500 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([64.65.253.246]:58805 "EHLO partygirl.tmr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757158AbZALXBH (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:01:07 -0500 Message-ID: <496BCB7A.2010804@tmr.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:00:10 -0500 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081217 Fedora/1.1.14-1.fc9 SeaMonkey/1.1.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Evgeniy Polyakov CC: Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Linux killed Kenny, bastard! 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> <20090112162938.GA22647@ioremap.net> In-Reply-To: <20090112162938.GA22647@ioremap.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2053 Lines: 41 Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > 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. > The only cases in which this would really be useful is when running some software which once in a great while goes super prompt critical and starts throwing processes of a known name format in all directions, or when you have a problem and know the process names involved before OOM kills everything in sight. This does have a strange attraction, I did save the patch in case another "every few years" problem comes up. -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot -- 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/