[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YvJKwCXewHmuWGdh@google.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 20:53:36 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Dmitry Rokosov <DDRokosov@...rdevices.ru>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"ngupta@...are.org" <ngupta@...are.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Aleksey Romanov <AVRomanov@...rdevices.ru>
Subject: Re: ext2/zram issue [was: Linux 5.19]
Hi,
On (22/08/09 10:20), Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> I think oom-kill is an inevitable escape from low memory situation if we
> don't solve original problem with high memory consumption in the user
> setup. Reclaim-based zram slow path just delays oom if memory eating
> root cause is not resolved.
>
> I totally agree with you that all patches which have visible user
> degradations should be reverted, but maybe this is more user setup
> problem, what do you think?
I'd go with the revert.
Jiri, are you going to send the revert patch or shall I handle it?
> If you make the decision to revert slow path removal patch, I would
> prefer to review the original patch with unneeded code removal again
> if you don't mind:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20220422115959.3313-1-avromanov@sberdevices.ru/
Sure, we can return to it after the merge window.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists