[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090805153157.5BBF.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:47:31 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] oom: move oom_adj to signal_struct
> > > What do you think about this approach ?
> >
> > I can ack this. but please re-initialize oom_scale_down at fork and
> > exec time.
> > currently oom_scale_down makes too big affect.
>
>
> Thanks for carefult review.
> In fact, I didn't care of it
> since it just is RFC for making sure my idea. :)
ok, I see.
> > and, May I ask which you hate my approach?
>
> Not at all. I never hate your approach.
> This problem resulted form David's original patch.
> I thought if we will fix live lock with different approach, we can remove much pain.
I also think your approach is enough acceptable.
ok, Let's wait one night and to hear other developer's opinion.
We can choice more lkml preferred approach :)
--
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