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 3D9806B0085 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:03:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id oAUD3ijT026818 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:03:44 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC77645DE55 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:03:44 +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 92C5C45DD74 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:03:44 +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 865951DB803A for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:03:44 +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 517561DB803B for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:03:44 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH 2/4] Revert "oom: deprecate oom_adj tunable" In-Reply-To: References: <20101123160259.7B9C.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-Id: <20101130220221.832B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:03:43 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , LKML , linux-mm List-ID: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > > No irrelevant. Your patch break their environment even though > > > > they don't use oom_adj explicitly. because their application are using it. > > > > > > > > > > The _only_ difference too oom_adj since the rewrite is that it is now > > > mapped on a linear scale rather than an exponential scale. > > > > _only_ mean don't ZERO different. Why do userland application need to rewrite? > > > > 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? > > > Again, IF you need to [0 .. 1000] range, you can calculate it by your > > application. current oom score can be get from /proc/pid/oom_score and > > total memory can be get from /proc/meminfo. You shouldn't have break > > anything. > > > > That would require the userspace tunable to be adjusted anytime a task's > mempolicy changes, its nodemask changes, it's cpuset attachment changes, All situation can be calculated on userland. User process can be know their bindings. > its mems change, a memcg limit changes, etc. The only constant is the > task's priority, and the current oom_score_adj implementation preserves > that unless explicitly changed later by the user. I completely understand > that you may not have a use for this. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org