> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > No irrelevant. Your patch break their environment even though > > they don't use oom_adj explicitly. because their application are using it. > > > > The _only_ difference too oom_adj since the rewrite is that it is now > mapped on a linear scale rather than an exponential scale. _only_ mean don't ZERO different. Why do userland application need to rewrite? > That's because > the heuristic itself has a defined range [0, 1000] that characterizes the > memory usage of the application it is ranking. To show any breakge, you > would have to show how oom_adj values being used by applications are based > on a calculated value that prioritizes those tasks amongst each other. > With the exponential scale, that's nearly impossible because of the number > of arbitrary heuristics that were used before oom_adj were considered > (runtime, nice level, CAP_SYS_RAWIO, etc). But, No people have agreed your powerfulness even though you talked about the same explanation a lot of times. Again, IF you need to [0 .. 1000] range, you can calculate it by your application. current oom score can be get from /proc/pid/oom_score and total memory can be get from /proc/meminfo. You shouldn't have break anything. > So don't talk about userspace breakage when you can't even describe it or > present a single usecase. Huh? Remember! your feature have ZERO user. -- 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>