Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Can you replace this:
> > >
> > > if (cap_t(p->cap_effective) & CAP_TO_MASK(CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) {
> > > force_sig(SIGTERM, p);
> > > } else {
> > > force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
> > > }
> > >
> > > with this?
> > >
> > > force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
> > >
> > > in mm/oom_kill.c.
> >
> > Nice. Your suggestion made the error goes away.
> >
> > We are still testing in order to compare between your OOM Killer and
> > Original OOM Killer.
>
> Ok, thanks for the confirmation. So my theory was right.
>
> Basically we've to make this patch, now that you already edited the
> code, can you diff and send a patch that will be the 6/5 in the serie?
>
I've already queued a patch for this:
--- 25/mm/oom_kill.c~mm-fix-several-oom-killer-bugs-fix Thu Jan 27 13:56:58 2005
+++ 25-akpm/mm/oom_kill.c Thu Jan 27 13:57:19 2005
@@ -198,12 +198,7 @@ static void __oom_kill_task(task_t *p)
p->time_slice = HZ;
p->memdie = 1;
- /* This process has hardware access, be more careful. */
- if (cap_t(p->cap_effective) & CAP_TO_MASK(CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) {
- force_sig(SIGTERM, p);
- } else {
- force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
- }
+ force_sig(SIGKILL, p);
}
static struct mm_struct *oom_kill_task(task_t *p)
However. This means that we'll now kill off tasks which had hardware
access. What are the implications of this?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
