From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A0A9A6008F0 for ; Wed, 19 May 2010 20:31:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o4K0VP9O010234 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Thu, 20 May 2010 09:31:25 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 612D145DE4E for ; Thu, 20 May 2010 09:31:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3639045DE52 for ; Thu, 20 May 2010 09:31:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8D9E08003 for ; Thu, 20 May 2010 09:31:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.103]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2316E08009 for ; Thu, 20 May 2010 09:31:24 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 09:27:17 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: oom killer rewrite Message-Id: <20100520092717.0c3d8f3f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:14:42 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes wrote: > KOSAKI, > > I've been notified that my entire oom killer rewrite has been dropped from > -mm based solely on your feedback. The problem is that I have absolutely > no idea what issues you have with the changes that haven't already been > addressed (nobody else does, either, it seems). > I've pointed out that "normalized" parameter doesn't seem to work well in some situaion (in cluster). I hope you'll have an extra interface as echo 3G > /proc//oom_indemification to allow users have "absolute value" setting. (If the admin know usual memory usage of an application, we can only add badness to extra memory usage.) To be honest, I can't fully understand why we need _normalized_ parameter. Why oom_adj _which is now used_ is not enough for setting "relative importance" ? Does google guys controls importance of processes in very small step ? And, IIRC, Nick pointed out that "don't remove _used_ interfaces just because you hate it or it seems not clean". So, I recommend you to drop sysctl changes. I think the whole concept of your patch series is good and I like it. But changes in interfaces seem not very sensible. Don't take my word very serious but I don't like changes in interface. Cheers, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org