From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757970AbYJMPqT (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:46:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755491AbYJMPqH (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:46:07 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:42285 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755449AbYJMPqG (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:46:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:44:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Ingo Molnar cc: Karel Zak , Arjan van de Ven , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Nick Piggin , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [kerneloops] regression in 2.6.27 wrt "lock_page" and the "hwclock" program In-Reply-To: <20081013152633.GA6523@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <20081004174433.14a5e093@infradead.org> <20081004215225.2444d54b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081005081145.30ba921b@infradead.org> <20081005102742.de8353b4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081005103826.6771540a@infradead.org> <20081012200004.GI10429@nb.net.home> <20081013152633.GA6523@elte.hu> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > do you agree with the changelog and can i add your Signed-off-by ? Sure. One thing I'd still like to see is that crazy "again" vs "survive" mess for x86-64 vs x86-32. I think the patch as posted will cause a new warning on x86-32 due to "unused label 'again'" or similar. It's totally insane that we have two different versions of the oom handling for x86. I don't know why we do that, it's probably historical, and I _suspect_ that the 32-bit one has gotten a lot more testing. And not just because there have been more of the 32-bit kernels around, but also because low-memory situations are probably more common on 32-bit setups. But I dunno. So I would suggest you just pick the x86-32 version of that oom handling thing too. Unless you know some deep reason why the 64-bit one would be superior. Linus