On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Dan McGee d...@archlinux.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Dan McGee d...@archlinux.org wrote:
[ patch ]
I suppose it's Tom who really needs to comment on this, but I'm not
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
[ oom_score_adj business ]
Did we do anything about this? Anyone else have an opinion on what
ought to be done?
I held off doing anything because it didn't seem like we had consensus.
OTOH, it may well be that it's not important enough to demand real
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
[ oom_score_adj business ]
Did we do anything about this? Anyone else have an opinion on what
ought to be done?
I held off doing anything because it didn't seem like we had
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Dan McGee d...@archlinux.org wrote:
[ patch ]
I suppose it's Tom who really needs to comment on this, but I'm not
too enthusiastic about this approach. Duplicating the Linux kernel
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Dan McGee d...@archlinux.org wrote:
[ patch ]
I suppose it's Tom who really needs to comment on this, but I'm not
too enthusiastic about this approach. Duplicating the Linux kernel
calculation into our code means that we could drift if the formula
changes again.
This is one way to prevent the kernel warning message without having to
introduce a new constant. Scale the old oom_adj-style value the same way
the kernel internally does it and use that instead if oom_score_adj is
available for writing.
Signed-off-by: Dan McGee d...@archlinux.org
---
This
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Dan McGee d...@archlinux.org wrote:
This is one way to prevent the kernel warning message without having to
introduce a new constant. Scale the old oom_adj-style value the same way
the kernel internally does it and use that instead if oom_score_adj is
available
