> On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > > > The new tunable added in 2.6.36, /proc/pid/oom_score_adj, is necessary for > > > > > the units that the badness score now uses. We need a tunable with a much > > > > > > > > Who we? > > > > > > > > > > Linux users who care about prioritizing tasks for oom kill with a tunable > > > that (1) has a unit, (2) has a higher resolution, and (3) is linear and > > > not exponential. > > > > No. Majority user don't care. You only talk about your case. Don't ignore > > end user. > > If they don't care, then they won't be using oom_adj, so you're point > about it's deprecation is irrelevant. No irrelevant. Your patch break their environment even though they don't use oom_adj explicitly. because their application are using it. > > Other users do want a more powerful userspace interface with a unit and > higher resolution (I am one of them), there's no requirement that those > users need to be in the majority. But, they only live in your DREAM. you coldn't show who necessary. > > > > Memcg doesn't solve this issue without incurring a 1% > > > memory cost. > > > > Look at a real. > > All major distributions has already turn on memcg. End user don't need > > to pay additional cost. > > Memcg also has a command-line disabling option to avoid incurring this 1% > memory cost when you're not going to be using it. Look at real. who use it? > > > No, it doesn't, and you completely and utterly failed to show a single > > > usecase that broke as a result of this because nobody can currently use > > > oom_adj for anything other than polarization. Thus, there's no backwards > > > compatibility issue. > > > > No. I showed. > > 1) Google code search showed some application are using this feature. > > http://www.google.com/codesearch?as_q=oom_adj&btnG=Search+Code&hl=ja&as_package=&as_lang=&as_filename=&as_class=&as_function=&as_license=&as_case= > > > > oom_adj isn't removed, it's deprecated. These users are using a > deprecated interface and have a few years to convert to using the new > interface (if it ever is actually removed). No. there is no reason to enforce rewrite tons applicatin. > > > 2) Not body use oom_adj other than polarization even though there are a few. > > example, kde are using. > > http://www.google.com/codesearch/p?hl=ja#MPJuLvSvNYM/pub/kde/unstable/snapshots/kdelibs.tar.bz2%7CWClmGVN5niU/kdelibs-1164923/kinit/start_kdeinit.c&q=oom_adj%20kde%205 > > > > When you are talking polarization issue, you blind a real. Don't talk your dream. > > > > I don't understand what you're trying to say here, but the current users > of oom_adj that aren't +15 or -16 (or OOM_DISABLE) are arbitrary based > relative to other tasks such as +5, +10, etc. They don't have any > semantics other than being arbitrarily relative because it doesn't work in > a linear way or with a scale. Even if you don't understand, they are IN THE WORLD. you don't have to ignore a real. > > 3) udev are using this feature. It's one of major linux component and you broke. > > > > http://www.google.com/codesearch/p?hl=ja#KVTjzuVpblQ/pub/linux/utils/kernel/hotplug/udev-072.tar.bz2%7CwUSE-Ay3lLI/udev-072/udevd.c&q=oom_adj > > > > You don't have to break our userland. you can't rewrite or deprecate > > old one. It's used! You can only add orthogonal new knob. > > > > That's incorrect, I didn't break anything by deprecating a tunable for a > few years. oom_adj gets converted roughly into an equivalent (but linear) > oom_score_adj. > > Unfortunately for your argument, you can't show a single example of a > current oom_adj user that has a scientific calculation behind its value > that is now broken on the linear scale. you are talking unrelated thing. > > > > Yes, I've tested it, and it deprecates the tunable as expected. A single > > > warning message serves the purpose well: let users know one time without > > > being overly verbose that the tunable is deprecated and give them > > > sufficient time (2 years) to start using the new tunable. That's how > > > deprecation is done. > > > > no sense. > > > > Why do their application need to rewrite for *YOU*? Okey, you will got > > benefit from your new knob. But NOBDOY use the new one. and People need > > to rewrite their application even though no benefit. > > > > Don't do selfish userland breakage! > > > > It's deprecated for a few years so users can gradually convert to the new > tunable, it wasn't removed when the new one was introduced. A higher > resolution tunable that scales linearly with a unit is an advantage for > Linux (for the minority of users who care about oom killing priority > beyond the heuristic) and I think a few years is enough time for users to > do a simple conversion to the new tunable. no sense. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>