From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753543AbaCFV3o (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:29:44 -0500
Received: from mail-qa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.216.50]:37337 "EHLO
	mail-qa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751469AbaCFV3m (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:29:42 -0500
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:29:38 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
        KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Jianguo Wu <wujianguo@huawei.com>, Tim Hockin <thockin@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 00/11] userspace out of memory handling
Message-ID: <20140306212938.GF17902@htj.dyndns.org>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1403041952170.8067@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <20140306204923.GF14033@htj.dyndns.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1403061254240.25499@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <20140306205911.GG14033@htj.dyndns.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1403061301020.25499@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <20140306211136.GA17902@htj.dyndns.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1403061312020.25499@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1403061312020.25499@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:23:57PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> I'm referring to system oom handling as an example above, in case you 
> missed my earlier email a few minutes ago: the previous patchset did not 
> include support for system oom handling.  Nothing that I wrote above was 
> possible with the first patchset.  This is the complete support.

But we were talking about system oom handling.  Yes, the patch didn't
exist back then but the fundamental premises stay unchanged.  There's
no point in restarting the whole thread.  You can refer to this
patchset from that thread.  It's a logical thing to do.  We have all
the context there.  I don't really understand why you're resisting it.
It doesn't change the basis of the discussion.  The issues brought up
before should still be addressed and it only makes sense to retain the
context.

If you have more to add, including the existence of this
implementation, let's please talk in the original thread.  It was long
thread with a lot of points raised.  Let's please not replay that
whole thread here unnecessarily.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun