> On Thu, 4 Nov 2010, Figo.zhang wrote:
quoted text
> 
> > > > 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.

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.




--
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/