Re: [PATCH 3/5] oom: oom-killer don't use proportion of system-raminternally

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

Hi


> > @@ -476,14 +476,17 @@ static const struct file_operations proc_lstats_operations = {
> >
> >   static int proc_oom_score(struct task_struct *task, char *buffer)
> >   {
> > -       unsigned long points = 0;
> > +       unsigned long points;
> > +       unsigned long ratio = 0;
> > +       unsigned long totalpages = totalram_pages + total_swap_pages + 1;
>
> Does we need +1?
> oom_badness does have the check.

"ratio = points * 1000 / totalpages;" need to avoid zero divide.

> >         /*
> >          * Root processes get 3% bonus, just like the __vm_enough_memory()
> >          * implementation used by LSMs.
> > +        *
> > +        * XXX: Too large bonus, example, if the system have tera-bytes memory..
> >          */
> > -       if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > -               points -= 30;
> > +       if (has_capability_noaudit(p, CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
> > +               if (points>= totalpages / 32)
> > +                       points -= totalpages / 32;
> > +               else
> > +                       points = 0;
>
> Odd. Why do we initialize points with 0?
>
> I think the idea is good.

The points is unsigned. It's common technique to avoid underflow.


--
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/