Re: [PATCH] copy over oom_adj value at fork time

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:00 PM, David Rientjes<rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Paul Menage wrote:
> >
> >> Agreed, but the same livelock can be fixed in ways that don't break
> >> the API. (E.g. check for the victim being OOM_DISABLED in
> >> select_bad_process() when we find a new "worst" candidate).
> >>
> >
> > And allow /proc/pid-of-child/oom_score to represent a possible candidate
> > (and, additionally, a hint at the oom killing priority) when it really
> > isn't?

Oops, I really don't like  /proc/pid-of-child/oom_score. it is very strange.

> 
> It's the API that's existed for years with no complaints, AFAICS.

I think thead and vfork() should be separeted on this discussion.
I agree vfork() regression should be fixed. but I don't think anyone
hope per-thread oom score. 

Of cource, if simple reverting is best way, I don't oppose this.... ;-)



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/