From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031128Ab1EXBV6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 May 2011 21:21:58 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:37670 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031095Ab1EXBVy (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 May 2011 21:21:54 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Message-ID: <4DDB082C.2030809@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:21:48 +0900 From: KOSAKI Motohiro User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rientjes@google.com CC: caiqian@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hughd@google.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, minchan.kim@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] oom: oom-killer don't use proportion of system-ram internally References: <4DD61F80.1020505@jp.fujitsu.com> <4DD6204D.5020109@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (2011/05/24 7:48), David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 23 May 2011, David Rientjes wrote: > >> I already suggested an alternative patch to CAI Qian to greatly increase >> the granularity of the oom score from a range of 0-1000 to 0-10000 to >> differentiate between tasks within 0.01% of available memory (16MB on CAI >> Qian's 16GB system). I'll propose this officially in a separate email. >> > > This is an alternative patch as earlier proposed with suggested > improvements from Minchan. CAI, would it be possible to test this out on > your usecase? > > I'm indifferent to the actual scale of OOM_SCORE_MAX_FACTOR; it could be > 10 as proposed in this patch or even increased higher for higher > resolution. I did explain why your proposal is unacceptable. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1378837#1378837 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC266B0012 for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 21:21:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9512D3EE0C3 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 10:21:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7880945DE96 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 10:21:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 602DF45DE94 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 10:21:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41200E78004 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 10:21:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.133]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E56421DB803E for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 10:21:52 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4DDB082C.2030809@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:21:48 +0900 From: KOSAKI Motohiro MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] oom: oom-killer don't use proportion of system-ram internally References: <4DD61F80.1020505@jp.fujitsu.com> <4DD6204D.5020109@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: rientjes@google.com Cc: caiqian@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hughd@google.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, minchan.kim@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com (2011/05/24 7:48), David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 23 May 2011, David Rientjes wrote: > >> I already suggested an alternative patch to CAI Qian to greatly increase >> the granularity of the oom score from a range of 0-1000 to 0-10000 to >> differentiate between tasks within 0.01% of available memory (16MB on CAI >> Qian's 16GB system). I'll propose this officially in a separate email. >> > > This is an alternative patch as earlier proposed with suggested > improvements from Minchan. CAI, would it be possible to test this out on > your usecase? > > I'm indifferent to the actual scale of OOM_SCORE_MAX_FACTOR; it could be > 10 as proposed in this patch or even increased higher for higher > resolution. I did explain why your proposal is unacceptable. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1378837#1378837 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org