Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:02:39 -0800 (PST) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |