From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753230AbZHFFNR (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 01:13:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751263AbZHFFNQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 01:13:16 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f183.google.com ([209.85.211.183]:39993 "EHLO mail-yw0-f183.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750715AbZHFFNP convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 01:13:15 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=KO2irPWBBe4tlUZdzfOwWbspZi7Do8DGVGJr/rf8L6U2G4F1nOy+aAWcB1pBoR+0Cx hY4aSWH6YaySpFc8baBWzDteDKxFSioH1mnKwgvmKouc27ZxzgmKzrizKjNNqmUdrkdJ 7M2A+SkkvYlBWRLJtirDYVB8vhTYY/bJWv2gw= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090805163945.056c463c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20090804191031.6A3D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090805163945.056c463c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:13:16 +0900 X-Google-Sender-Auth: b99e8b99de5ea9cb Message-ID: <2f11576a0908052213m3fba4154ifb73ab1ae2ea74d6@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH for 2.6.31 0/4] fix oom_adj regression v2 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: Andrew Morton Cc: LKML , Paul Menage , David Rientjes , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Rik van Riel , Linus Torvalds , Oleg Nesterov , linux-mm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > So I merged these but I have a feeling that this isn't the last I'll be > hearing on the topic ;) > > Given the amount of churn, the amount of discussion and the size of the > patches, this doesn't look like something we should push into 2.6.31. > > If we think that the 2ff05b2b regression is sufficiently serious to be > a must-fix for 2.6.31 then can we please find something safer and > smaller?  Like reverting 2ff05b2b? I don't think the serious problem is only this issue, I oppose to ignore regression bug report ;-) Yes, your point makes sense. then, I'll make two patch series. 1. reverting 2ff05b2b for 2.6.31 2. retry fix oom livelock for -mm I expect I can do that next sunday. > These patches clash with the controversial > mm-introduce-proc-pid-oom_adj_child.patch, so I've disabled that patch > now. I think we can drop this because workaround patch is only needed until the issue not fixed.