[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140109144757.e95616b4280c049b22743a15@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:47:57 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current
needs access to memory reserves
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 13:34:24 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > I just spent a happy half hour reliving this thread and ended up
> > deciding I agreed with everyone! I appears that many more emails are
> > needed so I think I'll drop
> > http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/mm-memcg-avoid-oom-notification-when-current-needs-access-to-memory-reserves.patch
> > for now.
> >
> > The claim that
> > mm-memcg-avoid-oom-notification-when-current-needs-access-to-memory-reserves.patch
> > will impact existing userspace seems a bit dubious to me.
> >
>
> I'm not sure why this was dropped since it's vitally needed for any sane
> userspace oom handler to be effective.
It was dropped because the other memcg developers disagreed with it.
I'd really prefer not to have to spend a great amount of time parsing
argumentative and repetitive emails to make a tie-break decision which
may well be wrong anyway.
Please work with the other guys to find an acceptable implementation.
There must be *something* we can do?
--
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