[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0810130841440.3288@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [kerneloops] regression in 2.6.27 wrt "lock_page" and the
"hwclock" program
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> do you agree with the changelog and can i add your Signed-off-by ?
Sure. One thing I'd still like to see is that crazy "again" vs "survive"
mess for x86-64 vs x86-32. I think the patch as posted will cause a new
warning on x86-32 due to "unused label 'again'" or similar.
It's totally insane that we have two different versions of the oom
handling for x86. I don't know why we do that, it's probably historical,
and I _suspect_ that the 32-bit one has gotten a lot more testing.
And not just because there have been more of the 32-bit kernels around,
but also because low-memory situations are probably more common on 32-bit
setups. But I dunno.
So I would suggest you just pick the x86-32 version of that oom handling
thing too. Unless you know some deep reason why the 64-bit one would be
superior.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists