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 2E7DF6B0047 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:25:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o230PlBu011931 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:25:47 +0900 Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F11A45DE52 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:25:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB8945DE51 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:25:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170001DB803C for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:25:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.103]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB67EE38003 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:25:42 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:22:10 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [patch -mm v2 04/10] oom: remove special handling for pagefault ooms Message-Id: <20100303092210.a730a903.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20100301052306.GG19665@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20100302085532.ff9d3cf4.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: Balbir Singh , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Nick Piggin , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:01:41 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > Kame said earlier it would be no problem to rebase his memcg oom work on > > > mmotm if my patches were merged. > > > > > > > But I also said this patch cause regression. > > This patch causes a regression??? You never said that in any of your > reviews and I have no idea what you're talking about, this patch simply > cleans up the code and closes a race where VM_FAULT_OOM could needlessly > kill tasks in parallel oom conditions. > try_set_system_oom() is not called in memory_cgroup_out_of_memory() path. Then, oom kill twice. Thanks, -Kame -- 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