From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932616Ab0KOD1a (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:27:30 -0500 Received: from [120.204.251.227] ([120.204.251.227]:22889 "EHLO LC-SHMAIL-01.SHANGHAI.LEADCORETECH.COM" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932514Ab0KOD13 (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:27:29 -0500 Message-ID: <4CE0A87E.1030304@leadcoretech.com> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:26:54 +0800 From: "Figo.zhang" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; zh-CN; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101028 Lightning/1.0b2 Lanikai/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Rientjes CC: KOSAKI Motohiro , "Figo.zhang" , lkml , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert oom rewrite series References: <1289402093.10699.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1289402666.10699.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20101114141913.E019.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Nov 2010 03:27:26.0770 (UTC) FILETIME=[06A4E120:01CB8475] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >Nothing to say, really. Seems each time we're told about a bug or a >regression, David either fixes the bug or points out why it wasn't a >bug or why it wasn't a regression or how it was a deliberate behaviour >change for the better. >I just haven't seen any solid reason to be concerned about the state of >the current oom-killer, sorry. >I'm concerned that you're concerned! A lot. When someone such as >yourself is unhappy with part of MM then I sit up and pay attention. >But after all this time I simply don't understand the technical issues >which you're seeing here. we just talk about oom-killer technical issues. i am doubt that a new rewrite but the athor canot provide some evidence and experiment result, why did you do that? what is the prominent change for your new algorithm? as KOSAKI Motohiro said, "you removed CAP_SYS_RESOURCE condition with ZERO explanation". David just said that pls use userspace tunable for protection by oom_score_adj. but may i ask question: 1. what is your innovation for your new algorithm, the old one have the same way for user tunable oom_adj. 2. if server like db-server/financial-server have huge import processes (such as root/hardware access processes)want to be protection, you let the administrator to find out which processes should be protection. you will let the financial-server administrator huge crazy!! and lose so many money!! ^~^ 3. i see your email in LKML, you just said "I have repeatedly said that the oom killer no longer kills KDE when run on my desktop in the presence of a memory hogging task that was written specifically to oom the machine." http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/48998 so you just test your new oom_killer algorithm on your desktop with KDE, so have you provide the detail how you do the test? is it do the experiment again for anyone and got the same result as your comment ? as KOSAKI Motohiro said, in reality word, it we makes 5-6 brain simulation, embedded, desktop, web server,db server, hpc, finance. Different workloads certenally makes big impact. have you do those experiments? i think that technology should base on experiment not on imagine. Best, Figo.zhang