| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:21:48 +0900 From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> To: rientjes@...gle.com CC: caiqian@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hughd@...gle.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, minchan.kim@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] oom: oom-killer don't use proportion of system-ram internally (2011/05/24 7:48), David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 23 May 2011, David Rientjes wrote: > >> I already suggested an alternative patch to CAI Qian to greatly increase >> the granularity of the oom score from a range of 0-1000 to 0-10000 to >> differentiate between tasks within 0.01% of available memory (16MB on CAI >> Qian's 16GB system). I'll propose this officially in a separate email. >> > > This is an alternative patch as earlier proposed with suggested > improvements from Minchan. CAI, would it be possible to test this out on > your usecase? > > I'm indifferent to the actual scale of OOM_SCORE_MAX_FACTOR; it could be > 10 as proposed in this patch or even increased higher for higher > resolution. I did explain why your proposal is unacceptable. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1378837#1378837 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists