Re: [patch] mm, oom: add comment for why oom_adj exists

Re: [patch] mm, oom: add comment for why oom_adj exists

[Hillf Danton]

> 
> /proc/pid/oom_adj exists solely to avoid breaking existing userspace
> binaries that write to the tunable.
> 
> Add a comment in the only possible location within the kernel tree to
> describe the situation and motivation for keeping it around.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> ---

Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>

>  fs/proc/base.c | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -1032,6 +1032,16 @@ static ssize_t oom_adj_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t count,
>  	return simple_read_from_buffer(buf, count, ppos, buffer, len);
>  }
> 
> +/*
> + * /proc/pid/oom_adj exists solely for backwards compatibility with previous
> + * kernels.  The effective policy is defined by oom_score_adj, which has a
> + * different scale: oom_adj grew exponentially and oom_score_adj grows linearly.
> + * Values written to oom_adj are simply mapped linearly to oom_score_adj.
> + * Processes that become oom disabled via oom_adj will still be oom disabled
> + * with this implementation.
> + *
> + * oom_adj cannot be removed since existing userspace binaries use it.
> + */
>  static ssize_t oom_adj_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
>  			     size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
>  {
> --

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>