Re: [PATCH] Revert oom rewrite series

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> > > > You may remember that the initial version of my rewrite replaced oom_adj 
> > > > entirely with the new oom_score_adj semantics.  Others suggested that it 
> > > > be seperated into a new tunable and the old tunable deprecated for a 
> > > > lengthy period of time.  I accepted that criticism and understood the 
> > > > drawbacks of replacing the tunable immediately and followed those 
> > > > suggestions.  I disagree with you that the deprecation of oom_adj for a 
> > > > period of two years is as dramatic as you imply and I disagree that users 
> > > > are experiencing problems with the linear scale that it now operates on 
> > > > versus the old exponential scale.
> > > 
> > > Yes and No. People wanted to separate AND don't break old one.
> > > 
> > 
> > You're arguing on the behalf of applications that don't exist.
> 
> Why?
> You actually got the bug report.
> 

There have never been any bug reports related to applications using 
oom_score_adj and being impacted with its linear mapping onto oom_adj's 
exponential scale.  That's because no users prior to the rewrite were 
using oom_adj scores that were based on either the expected memory usage 
of the application nor the capacity of the machine.
--
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/