Messages in this thread | | | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> | Subject | Re: [resend][PATCH 2/4] Revert "oom: deprecate oom_adj tunable" | Date | Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:16:57 +0900 (JST) |
| |
> 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.
| |