Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751460Ab0K1BmK (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:42:10 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.35]:2598 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750830Ab0K1BmF (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:42:05 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=xnAyoA7acRrZS0QImWBJBwSIIB5wXrOiasozzDyEhQVppdurY2ElEUBtPcPh9IyXqn lph8pNFiDe2iF9nfXbbw== Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 17:41:58 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: KOSAKI Motohiro cc: Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , LKML , linux-mm Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH 2/4] Revert "oom: deprecate oom_adj tunable" In-Reply-To: <20101123160259.7B9C.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <20101114135323.E00D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20101123160259.7B9C.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1656 Lines: 35 On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > No irrelevant. Your patch break their environment even though > > > they don't use oom_adj explicitly. because their application are using it. > > > > > > > The _only_ difference too oom_adj since the rewrite is that it is now > > mapped on a linear scale rather than an exponential scale. > > _only_ mean don't ZERO different. Why do userland application need to rewrite? > Because NOTHING breaks with the new mapping. Eight months later since this was initially proposed on linux-mm, you still cannot show a single example that depended on the exponential mapping of oom_adj. I'm not going to continue responding to your criticism about this point since your argument is completely and utterly baseless. > Again, IF you need to [0 .. 1000] range, you can calculate it by your > application. current oom score can be get from /proc/pid/oom_score and > total memory can be get from /proc/meminfo. You shouldn't have break > anything. > That would require the userspace tunable to be adjusted anytime a task's mempolicy changes, its nodemask changes, it's cpuset attachment changes, its mems change, a memcg limit changes, etc. The only constant is the task's priority, and the current oom_score_adj implementation preserves that unless explicitly changed later by the user. I completely understand that you may not have a use for this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/