Re: [patch 4/7 -mm] oom: badness heuristic rewrite

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > Sigh, this is going to require the amount of system memory to be 
> > partitioned into OOM_ADJUST_MAX, 15, chunks and that's going to be the 
> > granularity at which we'll be able to either bias or discount memory usage 
> > of individual tasks by: instead of being able to do this with 0.1% 
> > granularity we'll now be limited to 100 / 15, or ~7%.  That's ~9GB on my 
> > 128GB system just because this was originally a bitshift.  The upside is 
> > that it's now linear and not exponential.
> 
> Can you add newly-named knobs (rather than modifying the existing
> ones), deprecate the old ones and then massage writes to the old ones
> so that they talk into the new framework?
> 

That's what I was thinking, add /proc/pid/oom_score_adj that is just added 
into the badness score (and is then exported with /proc/pid/oom_score) 
like this patch did with oom_adj and then scale it into oom_adj units for 
that tunable.  A write to either oom_adj or oom_score_adj would change the 
other, the same thing I did for /proc/sys/vm/dirty_{bytes,ratio} and
/proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_{bytes,ratio} which I guess we have to 
support forever since the predecessors are part of the ABI and there's no 
way to deprecate them since they'll never be removed for that reason.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/