[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f11576a0908052213m3fba4154ifb73ab1ae2ea74d6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:13:16 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: 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>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 2.6.31 0/4] fix oom_adj regression v2
> So I merged these but I have a feeling that this isn't the last I'll be
> hearing on the topic ;)
>
> Given the amount of churn, the amount of discussion and the size of the
> patches, this doesn't look like something we should push into 2.6.31.
>
> If we think that the 2ff05b2b regression is sufficiently serious to be
> a must-fix for 2.6.31 then can we please find something safer and
> smaller? Like reverting 2ff05b2b?
I don't think the serious problem is only this issue, I oppose to
ignore regression
bug report ;-)
Yes, your point makes sense. then, I'll make two patch series.
1. reverting 2ff05b2b for 2.6.31
2. retry fix oom livelock for -mm
I expect I can do that next sunday.
> These patches clash with the controversial
> mm-introduce-proc-pid-oom_adj_child.patch, so I've disabled that patch
> now.
I think we can drop this because workaround patch is only needed until
the issue not fixed.
--
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