From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752070AbaAOOew (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:34:52 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49947 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751683AbaAOOeu (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:34:50 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:34:49 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: David Rientjes Cc: Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs access to memory reserves Message-ID: <20140115143449.GN8782@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20131219144134.GH10855@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20140107162503.f751e880410f61a109cdcc2b@linux-foundation.org> <20140109144757.e95616b4280c049b22743a15@linux-foundation.org> <20140109161246.57ea590f00ea5b61fdbf5f11@linux-foundation.org> <20140110221432.GD6963@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun 12-01-14 14:10:49, David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > > It was acked-by Michal. > > > > Michal acked it before we had most of the discussions and now he is > > proposing an alternate version of yours, a patch that you are even > > discussing with him concurrently in another thread. To claim he is > > still backing your patch because of that initial ack is disingenuous. > > > > His patch depends on mine, Johannes. Does it? Are we talking about the same patch here? https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/12/174 Which depends on yours only to revert your part. I plan to repost it but that still doesn't mean it will get merged because Johannes still has some argumnets against. I would like to start the discussion again because now we are so deep in circles that it is hard to come up with a reasonable outcome. It is still hard to e.g. agree on an actual fix for a real problem https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/12/129. While notification might be an issue as well it is more of a corner case than a regular one. So let's try to move on, agree on the "oom vs. PF_EXITING) first and lay out discussion for the notification in a new threa. Shall we? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs