On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:37, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Does anyone want
>>> to argue for doing something more complicated, and if so what exactly?
>
>> Well there's no harm trying to write to oom_score_adj and if that
>> fails with EEXISTS trying to write to oom_adj.
Yeah, I don't really like the idea of a compile time option that is
kernel version dependent... But i don't feel too strongly about it
either (all my kernels are new enough that they support
oom_score_adj).
I'll also note that on my system we are in the good company of ssd and chromium:
sshd (978): /proc/978/oom_adj is deprecated, please use
/proc/978/oom_score_adj instead.
chromium-sandbo (1377): /proc/1375/oom_adj is deprecated, please use
/proc/1375/oom_score_adj instead.
[ It quite annoying that soon after we decided to stick
-DLINUX_OOM_ADJ in they changed it. Whatever happened to a stable
userspace API :-( ]
