On Tue, 2 Nov 2010, Figo.zhang 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 3% bonus for protection. > Which applications are you referring to that cannot gracefully exit if killed? > Signed-off-by: Figo.zhang <figo1802@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/oom_kill.c | 8 +++++--- > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c > index 4029583..df6a9da 100644 > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c > @@ -195,10 +195,12 @@ unsigned int oom_badness(struct task_struct *p, struct mem_cgroup *mem, > task_unlock(p); > > /* > - * Root processes get 3% bonus, just like the __vm_enough_memory() > - * implementation used by LSMs. > + * Root and direct hardware access processes get 3% bonus, just like the > + * __vm_enough_memory() implementation used by LSMs. LSM's have this bonus for CAP_SYS_ADMIN, but not for CAP_SYS_RAWIO, so this comment is incorrect. > */ > - if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) > + if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN) || > + has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) || > + has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) > points -= 30; > > /* CAP_SYS_RAWIO had a much more dramatic impact in the previous heuristic to such a point that it would often allow memory hogging tasks to elude the oom killer at the expense of innocent tasks. I'm not sure this is the best way to go. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>