> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 20:42:02 +0900 (JST) > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > + /* > > > + * Warn that /proc/pid/oom_adj is deprecated, see > > > + * Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt. > > > + */ > > > + printk_once(KERN_WARNING "%s (%d): /proc/%d/oom_adj is deprecated, " > > > + "please use /proc/%d/oom_score_adj instead.\n", > > > + current->comm, task_pid_nr(current), > > > + task_pid_nr(task), task_pid_nr(task)); > > > task->signal->oom_adj = oom_adjust; > > > > Sorry, we can't accept this. oom_adj is one of most freqently used > > tuning knob. putting this one makes a lot of confusion. > > > > In addition, this knob is used from some applications (please google > > by google code search or something else). that said, an enduser can't > > stop the warning. that makes a lot of frustration. NO. > > > > I think it's OK. We made a mistake in adding oom_adj in the first > place and now we get to live with the consequences. > > We'll be stuck with oom_adj for the next 200 years if we don't tell > people to stop using it, and a printk_once() is a good way of doing > that. > > It could be that in two years time we decide that we can't remove oom_adj > yet because too many people are still using it. Maybe it will take ten > years - but unless we add the above printk, oom_adj will remain > forever. But oom_score_adj have no benefit form end-uses view. That's problem. Please consider to make end-user friendly good patch at first. I mean, I'm not against better knob deprecate old one. but I require 'better' mean end-users better. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>