On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > 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. >
[+akpm] We've tried to remove it over the period of a couple of years after oom_score_adj was introduced. I believe we had a WARN_ON() for the first two years and then removed it all together. A few months later, there was a bug report because the file didn't exist and Linus insisted it be readded because we don't break userspace. I would absolutely love to remove oom_adj, but I'm afraid that it may not be possible. -- 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/