From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755550Ab0KIM02 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:26:28 -0500 Received: from earthlight.etchedpixels.co.uk ([81.2.110.250]:54437 "EHLO www.etchedpixels.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755167Ab0KIM01 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:26:27 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 12:24:37 +0000 From: Alan Cox To: KOSAKI Motohiro , "Figo.zhang" Cc: David Rientjes , figo zhang , lkml , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH v2]oom-kill: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE should get bonus Message-ID: <20101109122437.2e0d71fd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20101109195726.BC9E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <1288834737.2124.11.camel@myhost> <20101109195726.BC9E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Face: 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > 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. > > 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. Can people stop throwing things at each other and worry about the facts - If it's a regression it should get reverted or fixed. But is it actually a regression ? Has the underlying behaviour changed in a problematic way? "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." 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.