Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757040Ab0KNVdy (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:33:54 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.35]:16183 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757006Ab0KNVdx (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:33:53 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=EpOko9qreGXV0IOHHeYqasto72kaNAAPkflaP70maRF2JPw1+Ww/BKwvqPiIhXK0O/ tg6BWt0UmSu5luFJ7MdQ== Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:33:21 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: KOSAKI Motohiro cc: "Figo.zhang" , lkml , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , "Figo.zhang" 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> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1961 Lines: 38 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 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/