On Mon 02-11-15 12:18:50, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 09:38:31PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > > I will hunt for other projects still using the deprecated
> > > > file exclusively. Hopefully there won't be too many of them.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 09:38:31PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > > I will hunt for other projects still using the deprecated
> > > file exclusively. Hopefully there won't be too many of them.
> >
> > It doesn't look that bad afterall:
> > $
On Sat 31-10-15 21:38:31, David Rientjes wrote:
[...]
> I'd love to be able to remove oom_adj. I'm not sure if we can get to that
> point if the instance is that "all userspace" must not write to it and it
> would require users to rebuild their binaries.
Considering there are still some which
On Sat 31-10-15 21:38:31, David Rientjes wrote:
[...]
> I'd love to be able to remove oom_adj. I'm not sure if we can get to that
> point if the instance is that "all userspace" must not write to it and it
> would require users to rebuild their binaries.
Considering there are still some which
On Mon 02-11-15 12:18:50, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 09:38:31PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > > > I will hunt for other projects still using the deprecated
> > > > file exclusively. Hopefully there won't be too many of them.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 09:38:31PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > > I will hunt for other projects still using the deprecated
> > > file exclusively. Hopefully there won't be too many of them.
> >
> > It doesn't look that bad afterall:
> > $
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 30-10-15 13:59:03, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 29-10-15 18:04:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 28-10-15 16:54:04, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > It's a bad situation, I agree, and we anticipated the complete removal
> > > > of
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
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 30-10-15 13:59:03, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 29-10-15 18:04:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 28-10-15 16:54:04, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > It's a bad situation, I agree, and we anticipated the complete removal
> > > > of
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
On Fri 30-10-15 13:59:03, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 29-10-15 18:04:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 28-10-15 16:54:04, David Rientjes wrote:
> > [...]
> > > It's a bad situation, I agree, and we anticipated the complete removal of
> > > /proc/pid/oom_adj years ago since it has been
On Thu 29-10-15 18:04:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 28-10-15 16:54:04, David Rientjes wrote:
> [...]
> > 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
On Thu 29-10-15 18:04:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 28-10-15 16:54:04, David Rientjes wrote:
> [...]
> > 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
On Fri 30-10-15 13:59:03, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 29-10-15 18:04:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 28-10-15 16:54:04, David Rientjes wrote:
> > [...]
> > > It's a bad situation, I agree, and we anticipated the complete removal of
> > > /proc/pid/oom_adj years ago since it has been
On Wed 28-10-15 16:54:04, David Rientjes wrote:
[...]
> 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.
On Wed 28-10-15 16:54:04, David Rientjes wrote:
[...]
> 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.
David Rientjes 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
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
David Rientjes 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
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
On Mon 26-10-15 14:42:57, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, Hongjie Fang (方洪杰) wrote:
>
> >
> > The oom_adj has been replaced by oom_score_adj in kernel,
> > but the /proc/pid/oom_adj is provided for legacy purposes.
> > When write/read a value into/from /proc/pid/oom_adj,
> > there
On Mon 26-10-15 14:42:57, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, Hongjie Fang (方洪杰) wrote:
>
> >
> > The oom_adj has been replaced by oom_score_adj in kernel,
> > but the /proc/pid/oom_adj is provided for legacy purposes.
> > When write/read a value into/from /proc/pid/oom_adj,
> > there
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, Hongjie Fang (方洪杰) wrote:
>
> The oom_adj has been replaced by oom_score_adj in kernel,
> but the /proc/pid/oom_adj is provided for legacy purposes.
> When write/read a value into/from /proc/pid/oom_adj,
> there is a transformation between oom_adj and oom_score_adj.
>
>
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, Hongjie Fang (方洪杰) wrote:
>
> The oom_adj has been replaced by oom_score_adj in kernel,
> but the /proc/pid/oom_adj is provided for legacy purposes.
> When write/read a value into/from /proc/pid/oom_adj,
> there is a transformation between oom_adj and oom_score_adj.
>
>
On Thu 22-10-15 06:49:01, Hongjie Fang (方洪杰) wrote:
>
> The oom_adj has been replaced by oom_score_adj in kernel,
> but the /proc/pid/oom_adj is provided for legacy purposes.
> When write/read a value into/from /proc/pid/oom_adj,
> there is a transformation between oom_adj and oom_score_adj.
>
>
The oom_adj has been replaced by oom_score_adj in kernel,
but the /proc/pid/oom_adj is provided for legacy purposes.
When write/read a value into/from /proc/pid/oom_adj,
there is a transformation between oom_adj and oom_score_adj.
After writing a new value into /proc/pid/oom_adj, then read it.
The oom_adj has been replaced by oom_score_adj in kernel,
but the /proc/pid/oom_adj is provided for legacy purposes.
When write/read a value into/from /proc/pid/oom_adj,
there is a transformation between oom_adj and oom_score_adj.
After writing a new value into /proc/pid/oom_adj, then read it.
On Thu 22-10-15 06:49:01, Hongjie Fang (方洪杰) wrote:
>
> The oom_adj has been replaced by oom_score_adj in kernel,
> but the /proc/pid/oom_adj is provided for legacy purposes.
> When write/read a value into/from /proc/pid/oom_adj,
> there is a transformation between oom_adj and oom_score_adj.
>
>
28 matches
Mail list logo