[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YXupw761Qtoppm7X@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:58:59 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...nvz.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg v3 3/3] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the
limit of dying tasks
On Wed 27-10-21 15:36:08, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:36:41 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> > My view on stable backport is similar to the previous patch. If we want
> > to have it there then let's wait for some time to see whether there are
> > any fallouts as this patch depends on the PF_OOM change.
>
> It's strange that [1/3] doesn't have cc:stable, but [2/3] and [3/3] do
> not. What is the thinking here?
>
> I expect we'd be OK with merging these into 5.16-rc1. This still gives
> another couple of months in -rc to shake out any problems. But I
> suspect the -stable maintainers will merge and release the patches
> before they are released in 5.16.
>
> In which case an alternative would be not to mark these patches
> cc:stable and to somehow remember to ask the -stable maintainers to
> merge them after 5.16 has been on the streets for a suitable period.
My take on stable backports is http://lkml.kernel.org/r/YXZ6FMzJLEz4TA2d@dhcp22.suse.cz
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists