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:
> > $ c
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 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 /proc/pid/oo
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 deprecated
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 th
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 /proc/pid/oom_s
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
