On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Alan Cox wrote: > The reverse can be argued equally - that they can unprotect themselves if > necessary. In fact it seems to be a "point of view" sort of question > which way you deal with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE, and that to me argues that > changing from old expected behaviour to a new behaviour is a regression. > I didn't check earlier, but CAP_SYS_RESOURCE hasn't had a place in the oom killer's heuristic in over five years, so what regression are we referring to in this thread? These tasks already have full control over oom_score_adj to modify its oom killing priority in either direction. And, as I said, giving these threads a bonus to be less preferred doesn't seem appropriate since (1) it's not a defined or expected behavior of CAP_SYS_RESOURCE like it is for sysadmin tasks, and (2) these threads are not bound by resource limits and thus have a higher liklihood of consuming larger amounts of memory. That's why I nack'd the patch in the first place and still do, there's no regression here and it's not in the best interest of freeing a large amount of memory which is the sole purpose of the oom killer. Futhermore, the heuristic was entirely rewritten, but I wouldn't consider all the old factors such as cputime and nice level being removed as "regressions" since the aim was to make it more predictable and more likely to kill a large consumer of memory such that we don't have to kill more tasks in the near future. -- 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>