From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 93FD9600429 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 20:02:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o7305nH0016184 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:05:49 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D077745DE55 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:05:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.92]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 926C145DE51 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:05:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69543E18006 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:05:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.104]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C9211DB803F for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:05:48 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:00:58 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [patch -mm 1/2] oom: badness heuristic rewrite Message-Id: <20100803090058.48c0a0c9.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20100802134312.c0f48615.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20100730091125.4AC3.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100729183809.ca4ed8be.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100730195338.4AF6.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100802134312.c0f48615.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , David Rientjes , Nick Piggin , Oleg Nesterov , Balbir Singh , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 13:43:12 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:02:13 +0900 (JST) > KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:12:26 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:16:33 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This a complete rewrite of the oom killer's badness() heuristic > > > > > > > > > > Any comments here, or are we ready to proceed? > > > > > > > > > > Gimme those acked-bys, reviewed-bys and tested-bys, please! > > > > > > > > If he continue to resend all of rewrite patch, I continue to refuse them. > > > > I explained it multi times. > > > > > > There are about 1000 emails on this topic. Please briefly explain it again. > > > > Major homework are > > > > - make patch series instead unreviewable all in one patch. > > Sometimes that's not very practical and the splitup isn't necessarily a > lot easier to understand and review. > > It's still possible to review the end result - just read the patched code. > > > - kill oom_score_adj > > Unclear why? > One reason I poitned out is that this new parameter is hard to use for admins and library writers. old oom_adj was defined as an parameter works as (memory usage of app)/oom_adj. new oom_score_adj was define as (memory usage of app * oom_score_adj)/ system_memory Then, an applications' oom_score on a host is quite different from on the other host. This operation is very new rather than a simple interface updates. This opinion was rejected. Anyway, I believe the value other than OOM_DISABLE is useless, I have no concerns. I'll use memcg if I want to control this kind of things. Because I know the new calculation logic works better at default, I welcome this patch itself in general. Thanks, -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