From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 28B416006F7 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:04:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pvg11 with SMTP id 11so414445pvg.14 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:04:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:03:53 +0900 From: Minchan Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] oom: /proc//oom_score treat kernel thread honestly Message-ID: <20100630140328.GC15644@barrios-desktop> References: <20100630172430.AA42.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100630182922.AA56.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100630182922.AA56.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 06:30:19PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > If kernel thread are using use_mm(), badness() return positive value. > This is not big issue because caller care it correctly. but there is > one exception, /proc//oom_score call badness() directly and > don't care the task is regular process. > > another example, /proc/1/oom_score return !0 value. but it's unkillable. > This incorrectness makes confusing to admin a bit. Hmm. If it is a really problem, Could we solve it in proc_oom_score itself? -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org