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:4.147 / U:0.164 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site