On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > 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? > Nothing breaks. If something did, you could respond to my answer above and provide a single example of a real-world example that broke as a result of the new linear mapping. > All situation can be calculated on userland. User process can be know > their bindings. > Yes, but the proportional priority-based oom_score_adj values allow users to avoid recalculating and writing that value anytime a mempolicy attachment changes, its nodemask changes, it moves to another cpuset, its set of mems changes, its memcg attachment changes, its limit is modiifed, etc. -- 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>