Re: [resend][PATCH 2/4] Revert "oom: deprecate oom_adj tunable"

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> 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.  

_only_ mean don't ZERO different. Why do userland application need to rewrite?


> 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).

But, No people have agreed your powerfulness even though you talked about
the same explanation a lot of times.

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.


> So don't talk about userspace breakage when you can't even describe it or 
> present a single usecase.

Huh? Remember! your feature have ZERO user.



--
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/