Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Nov 2010 12:24:37 +0000 | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2]oom-kill: CAP_SYS_RESOURCE should get bonus |
| |
> > > 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.
| |