> 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. David, Stupid are YOU. you removed CAP_SYS_RESOURCE condition with ZERO explanation and Figo reported a regression. That's enough the reason to undo. YOU have a guilty to explain why do you want to change and why do you think it has justification. Don't blame bug reporter. That's completely wrong. -- 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>