From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F58E6B007D for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:01:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o1G61Zl8019365 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:01:35 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08C645DE4E for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:01:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.92]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE3445DE5D for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:01:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D46E78001 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:01:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016FF1DB8038 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:01:34 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [patch 1/7 -mm] oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset In-Reply-To: <20100216110859.72C6.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20100216110859.72C6.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-Id: <20100216150100.72F7.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:01:33 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: David Rientjes , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Nick Piggin , Andrea Arcangeli , Balbir Singh , Lubos Lunak , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: typo. > But this explanation is irrelevant and meaningless. CPUSET can change s/CPUSET/mempolicy/ > restricted node dynamically. So, the tsk->mempolicy at oom time doesn't > represent the place of task's usage memory. plus, OOM_DISABLE can > always makes undesirable result. it's not special in this case. > > The fact is, both current and your heuristics have a corner case. it's > obvious. (I haven't seen corner caseless heuristics). then talking your > patch's merit doesn't help to merge the patch. The most important thing > is, we keep no regression. personally, I incline your one. but It doesn't > mean we can ignore its demerit. > > > -- 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