lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Revert oom rewrite series
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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-30 21:05    [W:0.650 / U:0.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site