> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > But oom_score_adj have no benefit form end-uses view. That's problem. > > Please consider to make end-user friendly good patch at first. > > > > Of course it does, it actually has units whereas oom_adj only grows or > shrinks the badness score exponentially. oom_score_adj's units are well > understood: on a machine with 4G of memory, 250 means we're trying to > prejudice it by 1G of memory so that can be used by other tasks, -250 > means other tasks should be prejudiced by 1G in comparison to this task, > etc. It's actually quite powerful. And, no real user want such power. When we consider desktop user case, End-users don't use oom_adj by themself. their application are using it. It mean now oom_adj behave as syscall like system interface, unlike kernel knob. application developers also don't need oom_score_adj because application developers don't know end-users machine mem size. Then, you will get the change's merit but end users will get the demerit. That's out of balance. -- 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>