Re: Linux killed Kenny, bastard!

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> 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.
> 
The only cases in which this would really be useful is when running some 
software which once in a great while goes super prompt critical and starts 
throwing processes of a known name format in all directions, or when you have a 
problem and know the process names involved before OOM kills everything in sight.

This does have a strange attraction, I did save the patch in case another "every 
few years" problem comes up.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot