[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170803082104.GE12521@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 10:21:04 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rientjes@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
guro@...com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, oom: do not rely on TIF_MEMDIE for memory
reserves access
On Thu 03-08-17 17:03:20, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Look, I really appreciate your sentiment for for nommu platform but with
> > an absolute lack of _any_ oom reports on that platform that I am aware
> > of nor any reports about lockups during oom I am less than thrilled to
> > add a code to fix a problem which even might not exist. Nommu is usually
> > very special with a very specific workload running (e.g. no overcommit)
> > so I strongly suspect that any OOM theories are highly academic.
>
> If you believe that there is really no oom report, get rid of the OOM
> killer completely.
I am not an user or even an owner of such a platform. As I've said all I
care about is to not regress for those guys and I believe that the patch
doesn't change nommu behavior in any risky way. If yes, point them out
and I will try to address them.
> > All I do care about is to not regress nommu as much as possible. So can
> > we get back to the proposed patch and updates I have done to address
> > your review feedback please?
>
> No unless we get rid of the OOM killer if CONFIG_MMU=n.
Are you saying that you are going to nack the patch based on this
reasoning? This is just ridiculous.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists