Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 27 Nov 2010 17:41:58 -0800 (PST) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [resend][PATCH 2/4] Revert "oom: deprecate oom_adj tunable" |
| |
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.
| |