On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:14:42 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > KOSAKI, > > I've been notified that my entire oom killer rewrite has been dropped from > -mm based solely on your feedback. The problem is that I have absolutely > no idea what issues you have with the changes that haven't already been > addressed (nobody else does, either, it seems). > I've pointed out that "normalized" parameter doesn't seem to work well in some situaion (in cluster). I hope you'll have an extra interface as echo 3G > /proc/<pid>/oom_indemification to allow users have "absolute value" setting. (If the admin know usual memory usage of an application, we can only add badness to extra memory usage.) To be honest, I can't fully understand why we need _normalized_ parameter. Why oom_adj _which is now used_ is not enough for setting "relative importance" ? Does google guys controls importance of processes in very small step ? And, IIRC, Nick pointed out that "don't remove _used_ interfaces just because you hate it or it seems not clean". So, I recommend you to drop sysctl changes. I think the whole concept of your patch series is good and I like it. But changes in interfaces seem not very sensible. Don't take my word very serious but I don't like changes in interface. Cheers, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>