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/

Reply via email to