[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201608280750.02034.a.miskiewicz@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 07:50:01 +0200
From: Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@...il.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
"Ralf-Peter Rohbeck" <Ralf-Peter.Rohbeck@...ntum.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: OOM detection regressions since 4.7
On Thursday 25 of August 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 23-08-16 09:43:39, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 22-08-16 15:05:17, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:42:28 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
wrote:
> > > > Of course, if Linus/Andrew doesn't like to take those compaction
> > > > improvements this late then I will ask to merge the partial revert to
> > > > Linus tree as well and then there is not much to discuss.
> > >
> > > This sounds like the prudent option. Can we get 4.8 working
> > > well-enough, backport that into 4.7.x and worry about the fancier stuff
> > > for 4.9?
> >
> > OK, fair enough.
> >
> > I would really appreciate if the original reporters could retest with
> > this patch on top of the current Linus tree.
>
> Any luck with the testing of this patch?
Here my "rm -rf && cp -al" 10x in parallel test finished without OOM, so
Tested-by: Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz <arekm@...en.pl>
--
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz, arekm / ( maven.pl | pld-linux.org )
Powered by blists - more mailing lists