Messages in this thread | | | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Revert oom rewrite series | Date | Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:04:59 +0900 (JST) |
| |
> On Tue, 23 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.
> > > > > 1) About two month ago, Dave hansen observed strange OOM issue because he > > > > has a big machine and ALL process are not so big. thus, eventually all > > > > process got oom-score=0 and oom-killer didn't work. > > > > > > > > https://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-driver-devel/2010/9/9/6886383 > > > > > > > > DavidR changed oom-score to +1 in such situation. > > > > > > > > http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2010/9/9/4617455 > > > > > > > > But it is completely bognus. If all process have score=1, oom-killer fall > > > > back to purely random killer. I expected and explained his patch has > > > > its problem at half years ago. but he didn't fix yet. > > > > > > > > > > The resolution with which the oom killer considers memory is at 0.1% of > > > system RAM at its highest (smaller when you have a memory controller, > > > cpuset, or mempolicy constrained oom). It considers a task within 0.1% of > > > memory of another task to have equal "badness" to kill, we don't break > > > ties in between that resolution -- it all depends on which one shows up in > > > the tasklist first. If you disagree with that resolution, which I support > > > as being high enough, then you may certainly propose a patch to make it > > > even finer at 0.01%, 0.001%, etc. It would only change oom_badness() to > > > range between [0,10000], [0,100000], etc. > > > > No. > > Think Moore's Law. rational value will be not able to work in future anyway. > > 10 years ago, I used 20M bytes memory desktop machine and I'm now using 2GB. > > memory amount is growing and growing. and bash size doesn't grwoing so fast. > > > > If you'd like to suggest an increase to the upper-bound of the badness > score, please do so, although I don't think we need to break ties amongst > tasks that differ by at most <0.1% of the system's capacity.
No. I dislike. I dislike propotinal score.
| |