> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
quoted text
> 
> > > > 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?


quoted text
> 
> > 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.



quoted text
> 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.



--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/