[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1011301205510.12979@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:07:39 -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 Tue, 30 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > 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?
>
Nothing breaks. If something did, you could respond to my answer above
and provide a single example of a real-world example that broke as a
result of the new linear mapping.
> All situation can be calculated on userland. User process can be know
> their bindings.
>
Yes, but the proportional priority-based oom_score_adj values allow users
to avoid recalculating and writing that value anytime a mempolicy
attachment changes, its nodemask changes, it moves to another cpuset, its
set of mems changes, its memcg attachment changes, its limit is modiifed,
etc.
--
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