lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [resend][PATCH 2/4] Revert "oom: deprecate oom_adj tunable"
Date
> On Sun, 14 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?


> That's because
> the heuristic itself has a defined range [0, 1000] that characterizes the
> memory usage of the application it is ranking. To show any breakge, you
> would have to show how oom_adj values being used by applications are based
> on a calculated value that prioritizes those tasks amongst each other.
> With the exponential scale, that's nearly impossible because of the number
> of arbitrary heuristics that were used before oom_adj were considered
> (runtime, nice level, CAP_SYS_RAWIO, etc).

But, No people have agreed your powerfulness even though you talked about
the same explanation a lot of times.

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.


> So don't talk about userspace breakage when you can't even describe it or
> present a single usecase.

Huh? Remember! your feature have ZERO user.





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-23 08:21    [W:0.291 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site