Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:07:39 -0800 (PST) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [resend][PATCH 2/4] Revert "oom: deprecate oom_adj tunable" |
| |
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > Because NOTHING breaks with the new mapping. Eight months later since > > this was initially proposed on linux-mm, you still cannot show a single > > example that depended on the exponential mapping of oom_adj. I'm not > > going to continue responding to your criticism about this point since your > > argument is completely and utterly baseless. > > No regression mean no break. Not single nor multiple. see? >
Nothing breaks. If something did, you could respond to my answer above and provide a single example of a real-world example that broke as a result of the new linear mapping.
> All situation can be calculated on userland. User process can be know > their bindings. >
Yes, but the proportional priority-based oom_score_adj values allow users to avoid recalculating and writing that value anytime a mempolicy attachment changes, its nodemask changes, it moves to another cpuset, its set of mems changes, its memcg attachment changes, its limit is modiifed, etc.
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |