Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932150Ab0KDCPs (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2010 22:15:48 -0400 Received: from [120.204.251.227] ([120.204.251.227]:11384 "EHLO LC-SHMAIL-01.SHANGHAI.LEADCORETECH.COM" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754934Ab0KDCPo (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2010 22:15:44 -0400 Subject: Re: Re:[PATCH v2]oom-kill: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE should get bonus From: "Figo.zhang" To: David Rientjes Cc: figo zhang , lkml , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: References: <1288662213.10103.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1288827804.2725.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1288834737.2124.11.camel@myhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:12:13 +0800 Message-ID: <1288836733.2124.18.camel@myhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Nov 2010 02:15:36.0095 (UTC) FILETIME=[2ABCD2F0:01CB7BC6] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1589 Lines: 45 On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 18:50 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > 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. In your new heuristic, you also get CAP_SYS_RESOURCE to protection. see fs/proc/base.c, line 1167: if (oom_score_adj < task->signal->oom_score_adj && !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) { err = -EACCES; goto err_sighand; } so i want to protect some process like normal process not CAP_SYS_RESOUCE, i set a small oom_score_adj , if new oom_score_adj is small than now and it is not limited resource, it will not adjust, that seems not right? -- 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/