On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 16:54:31 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > And I wonder if David has observed some problem which the 2010 change > > fixes! > > > > Yes, as explained in my changelog. I'll paste it: > > Tasks that do not share the same set of allowed nodes with the task that > triggered the oom should not be considered as candidates for oom kill. > > Tasks in other cpusets with a disjoint set of mems would be unfairly > penalized otherwise because of oom conditions elsewhere; an extreme > example could unfairly kill all other applications on the system if a > single task in a user's cpuset sets itself to OOM_DISABLE and then uses > more memory than allowed. OK, so Nick's change didn't anticipate things being set to OOM_DISABLE? OOM_DISABLE seems pretty dangerous really - allows malicious unprivileged users to go homicidal? -- 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>