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

[David Rientjes]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/