Re: Linux killed Kenny, bastard!

[Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@ioremap.net>]

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