> On Tue, 23 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? > > > > 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? > > > 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. > > > > That would require the userspace tunable to be adjusted anytime a task's > mempolicy changes, its nodemask changes, it's cpuset attachment changes, All situation can be calculated on userland. User process can be know their bindings. > its mems change, a memcg limit changes, etc. The only constant is the > task's priority, and the current oom_score_adj implementation preserves > that unless explicitly changed later by the user. I completely understand > that you may not have a use for this. -- 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>