[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d6200be20901212139u3683c829x4db1840a28986a6f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:39:45 -0800
From: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
To: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Cgroup based OOM killer controller
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de> wrote:
> To use oom_adj effectively one should continuously monitor oom_score of all
> the processes, which is a complex moving target and keep on adjusting the
> oom_adj of many tasks which still cannot guarantee the order. This controller
> is deterministic and hence easier to use.
>
Why not add an option to make oom_adj ensure strict ordering instead?
--
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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