On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

quoted text
> > the victim should not directly access hardware devices like Xorg server,
> > because the hardware could be left in an unpredictable state, although 
> > user-application can set /proc/pid/oom_score_adj to protect it. so i think
> > those processes should get bonus for protection.
> > 
> > in v2, fix the incorrect comment.
> > in v3, change the divided the badness score by 4, like old heuristic for protection. we just
> > want the oom_killer don't select Root/RESOURCE/RAWIO process as possible.
> > 
> > suppose that if a user process A such as email cleint "evolution" and a process B with
> > ditecly hareware access such as "Xorg", they have eat the equal memory (the badness score is 
> > the same),so which process are you want to kill? so in new heuristic, it will kill the process B.
> > but in reality, we want to kill process A.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Figo.zhang <figo1802@gmail.com>
> > Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> 
> Sorry for the delay. I've sent completely revert patch to linus. It will
> disappear your headache, I believe. I'm sorry that our development
> caused your harm. We really don't want it.
> 

Oh please, your dramatics are getting better and better.

Figo.zhang never described a problem that was being addressed but rather 
proposed several different variants of a patch (some with CAP_SYS_ADMIN, 
some with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE, some with CAP_SYS_RAWIO, some with a 
combination, some with a 3% bonus, some with a order-of-2 bonus, etc) to 
return the same heuristic used in the old oom killer.  I asked several 
times to show the oom killer log from the problematic behavior and none 
were presented.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/