On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 20:41:56 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > > @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ > > * Copyright (C) 1998,2000 Rik van Riel > > * Thanks go out to Claus Fischer for some serious inspiration and > > * for goading me into coding this file... > > + * Copyright (C) 2010 Google, Inc. > > + * Rewritten by David Rientjes > > don't put it. > Seems OK to me. It's a fairly substantial change and people have added their (c) in the past for smaller kernel changes. I guess one could even do this for a one-liner. > > ... > > > /* > > - * Niced processes are most likely less important, so double > > - * their badness points. > > + * The memory controller may have a limit of 0 bytes, so avoid a divide > > + * by zero if necessary. > > */ > > - if (task_nice(p) > 0) > > - points *= 2; > > You removed > - run time check > - cpu time check > - nice check > > but no described the reason. reviewers are puzzled. How do we review > this though we don't get your point? please write > > - What benerit is there? > - Why do you think no bad effect? > - How confirm do you? yup. > > > + if (!totalpages) > > + totalpages = 1; > > > > /* > > - * Superuser processes are usually more important, so we make it > > - * less likely that we kill those. > > + * The baseline for the badness score is the proportion of RAM that each > > + * task's rss and swap space use. > > */ > > - if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN) || > > - has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) > > - points /= 4; > > + points = (get_mm_rss(p->mm) + get_mm_counter(p->mm, MM_SWAPENTS)) * 1000 / > > + totalpages; > > + task_unlock(p); > > > > /* > > - * We don't want to kill a process with direct hardware access. > > - * Not only could that mess up the hardware, but usually users > > - * tend to only have this flag set on applications they think > > - * of as important. > > + * Root processes get 3% bonus, just like the __vm_enough_memory() > > + * implementation used by LSMs. > > */ > > - if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) > > - points /= 4; > > + if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) > > + points -= 30; > > > CAP_SYS_ADMIN seems no good idea. CAP_SYS_ADMIN imply admin's interactive > process. but killing interactive process only cause force logout. but > killing system daemon can makes more catastrophic disaster. > > > Last of all, I'll pulled this one. but only do cherry-pick. > This change was unchangelogged, I don't know what it's for and I don't understand your comment about it. Apart from that, I'm doing great! -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>