lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-30 21:09    [W:0.102 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site