From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755797Ab0BCSUj (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:20:39 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:28023 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754491Ab0BCSUh (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:20:37 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=mGiSyvKROi7SY1Nl1yA6PcLWGVXWlGdVyG13JVn2s+PzSKQlw240HRGv0jni8xfGC kV/TtAVUrKd3LL6lFnXvw== Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:20:29 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Minchan Kim cc: Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Christoph Lameter , Lee Schermerhorn , linux-mm , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH][mmotm-2010-02-01-16-25] Fix wrong accouting of anon and file In-Reply-To: <1265210739.1052.36.camel@barrios-desktop> Message-ID: References: <1265210739.1052.36.camel@barrios-desktop> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Minchan Kim wrote: > Unfortunately, Kame said he doesn't support this series. > I am not sure we need this patch or revert patch. > Nobody is currently using it and it adds an overhead just by doing the extra branches, so I'd be inclined to drop mm-count-lowmem-rss.patch from -mm and then reintroduce it later if something needs it down the line. > Who need this? > > David. Do you want to remain this patch in mmotm for your OOM patch > in future? > We'll need to do something for lowmem ooms so that we aren't needlessly killing taks that don't consume it. At this point, I think it's better to just fail GFP_DMA allocations where direct reclaim (and, later, memory compaction) has failed unless it is __GFP_NOFAIL, which none of them are. So this would be a change to the page allocator to defer the oom killer and return NULL on GFP_DMA instead of needlessly killing tasks. > If anyone doesn't reply my question, Do we have to make revert patch? > We won't need a revert patch, Andrew will be able to simply drop mm-count-lowmem-rss.patch from -mm.