David Rientjes <rient...@google.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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
