From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 936CC6B004F for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 02:47:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n756lXJ3002350 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:47:34 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6174F45DE6F for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:47:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE1E45DE4D for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:47:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 094461DB8041 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:47:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.106]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36C71DB803F for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:47:32 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] oom: move oom_adj to signal_struct In-Reply-To: <20090805152956.faf52a5a.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop> References: <20090805150017.5BB9.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090805152956.faf52a5a.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop> Message-Id: <20090805153157.5BBF.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:47:31 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Minchan Kim Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, LKML , Paul Menage , David Rientjes , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Oleg Nesterov , linux-mm List-ID: > > > What do you think about this approach ? > > > > I can ack this. but please re-initialize oom_scale_down at fork and > > exec time. > > currently oom_scale_down makes too big affect. > > > Thanks for carefult review. > In fact, I didn't care of it > since it just is RFC for making sure my idea. :) ok, I see. > > and, May I ask which you hate my approach? > > Not at all. I never hate your approach. > This problem resulted form David's original patch. > I thought if we will fix live lock with different approach, we can remove much pain. I also think your approach is enough acceptable. ok, Let's wait one night and to hear other developer's opinion. We can choice more lkml preferred approach :) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org