Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Re:[PATCH v2]oom-kill: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE should get bonus | From | "Figo.zhang" <> | Date | Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:12:13 +0800 |
| |
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?
| |