linux-kernel - Re: [to-be-updated] mm-memcg-add-memoryoom_control-notification-for-system-oom.patch removed from -mm tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131120100854.GA16531@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:08:54 +0100
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mm-commits@...r.kernel.org,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, hannes@...xchg.org
Subject: Re: [to-be-updated]
 mm-memcg-add-memoryoom_control-notification-for-system-oom.patch removed
 from -mm tree

On Wed 20-11-13 00:05:18, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, akpm@...ux-foundation.org wrote:
> 
> > Subject: [to-be-updated] mm-memcg-add-memoryoom_control-notification-for-system-oom.patch removed from -mm tree
> > To: rientjes@...gle.com,hannes@...xchg.org,kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,mhocko@...e.cz,mm-commits@...r.kernel.org
> > From: akpm@...ux-foundation.org
> > Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:38:14 -0800
> > 
> > 
> > The patch titled
> >      Subject: mm, memcg: add memory.oom_control notification for system oom
> > has been removed from the -mm tree.  Its filename was
> >      mm-memcg-add-memoryoom_control-notification-for-system-oom.patch
> > 
> > This patch was dropped because an updated version will be merged
> 
> Why is this removed?

I've asked Andrew to drop it for now (you were CCed) and mentioned my
reasons.

> I've laid out my perspective for doing userspace oom handling and this is 
> a vital part for system oom handling.  I know that we are currently 
> discussing alternative proposals but my proposal is by far the most 
> complete and allows the most powerful policies to be implemented in 
> userspace.  I'd prefer if we would keep the patch unless an actual 
> alternative is proposed and agreed upon, we can still discuss alternatives 
> while this in -mm and this patch in no way precludes other mechanisms from 
> being implemented.
> 
> So why remove this?

This is a user interface visible change. I do not want to do it until we
agree on a way to go. I do not see any advantage of having this in -mm
until then. It doesn't need any testing from -next (does it?) and the
code is simple enough to push it later on without troubles if the
memcg.oom_control is considered as a way to go. I do not see any reason
to rush it in now.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/