Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756590Ab0K3UCr (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:02:47 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.35]:5305 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751117Ab0K3UCq (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:02:46 -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=kiiQH0N9IlwaoEidCG2f/nVjintrDzE0MhAjao4NsvcvFY/RsoV/0K4cCEY3bYQXmj mCg9gq5bt+Q2TOzyfk8g== Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:02:39 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: KOSAKI Motohiro cc: Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , LKML , Ying Han , Bodo Eggert <7eggert@web.de>, Mandeep Singh Baines , "Figo.zhang" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert oom rewrite series In-Reply-To: <20101130220510.832E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <20101123151731.7B7B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20101130220510.832E.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: 1516 Lines: 31 On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > You may remember that the initial version of my rewrite replaced oom_adj > > > > entirely with the new oom_score_adj semantics. Others suggested that it > > > > be seperated into a new tunable and the old tunable deprecated for a > > > > lengthy period of time. I accepted that criticism and understood the > > > > drawbacks of replacing the tunable immediately and followed those > > > > suggestions. I disagree with you that the deprecation of oom_adj for a > > > > period of two years is as dramatic as you imply and I disagree that users > > > > are experiencing problems with the linear scale that it now operates on > > > > versus the old exponential scale. > > > > > > Yes and No. People wanted to separate AND don't break old one. > > > > > > > You're arguing on the behalf of applications that don't exist. > > Why? > You actually got the bug report. > There have never been any bug reports related to applications using oom_score_adj and being impacted with its linear mapping onto oom_adj's exponential scale. That's because no users prior to the rewrite were using oom_adj scores that were based on either the expected memory usage of the application nor the capacity of the machine. -- 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/