[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1011141333330.22262@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:39:28 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH 2/4] Revert "oom: deprecate oom_adj tunable"
On Sun, 14 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. That's because
the heuristic itself has a defined range [0, 1000] that characterizes the
memory usage of the application it is ranking. To show any breakge, you
would have to show how oom_adj values being used by applications are based
on a calculated value that prioritizes those tasks amongst each other.
With the exponential scale, that's nearly impossible because of the number
of arbitrary heuristics that were used before oom_adj were considered
(runtime, nice level, CAP_SYS_RAWIO, etc).
So don't talk about userspace breakage when you can't even describe it or
present a single usecase.
--
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