lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux killed Kenny, bastard!
    On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:19:31PM +0000, Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote:
    > > Yes, it could be done. If inotify will not be killed itself, will be
    > > enabled in the config and daemon will be started.
    > > But right now there is no way to solve that task, in the long term this
    > > is a good idea to implement modulo security problems it may concern.
    >
    > It is perfectly soluble right now, use the existing /proc interface. If
    > you want to specifically victimise new tasks first then set everything
    > else with an adjust *against* being killed and new stuff will start off
    > as cannon fodder until classified.
    >
    > The name approach is the wrong way to handle this. It has no reflection
    > of heirarchy of process, targetting by users, containers etc..
    >
    > In fact containers are probably the right way to do it

    Containers to solve oom-killer selection problem? :)

    Being more serious, I agree that having a simple name does not solve the
    problem if observed from any angle, but it is not the main goal.
    Patch solves oom-killer selection issue from likely the most commonly
    used case: when you know who should be checked and killed first when
    problem appears.

    --
    Evgeniy Polyakov


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-12 17:31    [W:9.000 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site