On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 18:50 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> 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.
In your new heuristic, you also get CAP_SYS_RESOURCE to protection.
see fs/proc/base.c, line 1167:
if (oom_score_adj < task->signal->oom_score_adj &&
!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) {
err = -EACCES;
goto err_sighand;
}
so i want to protect some process like normal process not
CAP_SYS_RESOUCE, i set a small oom_score_adj , if new oom_score_adj is
small than now and it is not limited resource, it will not adjust, that
seems not right?
--
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>