On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 09:07:02AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:30:19PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > If kernel thread are using use_mm(), badness() return positive value. > > > This is not big issue because caller care it correctly. but there is > > > one exception, /proc/<pid>/oom_score call badness() directly and > > > don't care the task is regular process. > > > > > > another example, /proc/1/oom_score return !0 value. but it's unkillable. > > > This incorrectness makes confusing to admin a bit. > > > > Hmm. If it is a really problem, Could we solve it in proc_oom_score itself? > > probably, no good idea. For maintainance view, all oom related code should > be gathered in oom_kill.c. > If you dislike to add messy into badness(), I hope to make badness_for_oom_score() I am looking forward to seeing your next series. Thanks, Kosaki. P.S) I think if the number of patch series is the bigger than #10, It would be better to include or point url of all-at-once patch in patch series. In case of your patch, post patches changes pre patches It could make hard review unless the reviewer merge patches into tree to see the final figure. -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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>