Re:[PATCH v2]oom-kill: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE should get bonus

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 4 Nov 2010, Figo.zhang wrote:

> > > CAP_SYS_RESOURCE also had better get 3% bonus for protection.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Would you like to elaborate as to why?
> > 
> > 
> 
> process with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE capibility which have system resource
> limits, like journaling resource on ext3/4 filesystem, RTC clock. so it
> also the same treatment as process with CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
> 

NACK, there's no justification that these tasks should be given a 3% 
memory bonus in the oom killer heuristic; in fact, since they can allocate 
without limits it is more important to target these tasks if they are 
using an egregious amount of memory.  CAP_SYS_RESOURCE threads have the 
ability to lower their own oom_score_adj values, thus, they should protect 
themselves if necessary like everything else.

--
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>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]