[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100216150100.72F7.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:01:33 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/7 -mm] oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset
typo.
> But this explanation is irrelevant and meaningless. CPUSET can change
s/CPUSET/mempolicy/
> restricted node dynamically. So, the tsk->mempolicy at oom time doesn't
> represent the place of task's usage memory. plus, OOM_DISABLE can
> always makes undesirable result. it's not special in this case.
>
> The fact is, both current and your heuristics have a corner case. it's
> obvious. (I haven't seen corner caseless heuristics). then talking your
> patch's merit doesn't help to merge the patch. The most important thing
> is, we keep no regression. personally, I incline your one. but It doesn't
> mean we can ignore its demerit.
>
>
>
--
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