[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87eggeuyho.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:47:47 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Hongjie Fang (方洪杰)
<Hongjie.Fang@...eadtrum.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 答复: [PATCHv2 4.3-rc6] proc: fix convert
from oom_score_adj to oom_adj
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> writes:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Hongjie Fang (方洪杰) wrote:
>
>> Under a userspace perspective, get a different value than he wrote,
>> it must be confusing.
>>
>
> It's confusing, but with purpose: it shows there is no direct mapping
> between /proc/pid/oom_adj and /proc/pid/oom_score_adj.
> /proc/pid/oom_score_adj is the effective policy and has been for years.
> The value returned by /proc/pid/oom_adj demonstrates reality vs what is
> perceived and is a side-effect of integer division truncating the result
> in C.
>
> It's a bad situation, I agree, and we anticipated the complete removal of
> /proc/pid/oom_adj years ago since it has been deprecated for years. Maybe
> one day we can convince Linus that is possible, but until then we're stuck
> with it.
If you really want to remove /proc/pid/oom_adj start by placing it in a
Kconfig so people can make it go away.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists