From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F0D236B01B7 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 09:54:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o52Ds43O021507 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:54:05 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A528345DE54 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:54:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6571E45DE4E for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:54:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42BE61DB805B for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:54:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.106]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC77A1DB8040 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:54:03 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] oom: select_bad_process: check PF_KTHREAD instead of !mm to skip kthreads In-Reply-To: References: <20100601212023.GA24917@redhat.com> Message-Id: <20100602223612.F52D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:54:03 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Oleg Nesterov , LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Nick Piggin List-ID: > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > But yes, I agree, the problem is minor. But nevertheless it is bug, > > the longstanding bug with the simple fix. Why should we "hide" this fix > > inside the long series of non-trivial patches which rewrite oom-killer? > > And it is completely orthogonal to other changes. > > > > Again, the question is whether or not the fix is rc material or not, > otherwise there's no difference in the route that it gets upstream: the > patch is duplicated in both series. If you feel that this minor issue > (which has never been reported in at least the last three years and > doesn't have any side effects other than a couple of millisecond delay > until unuse_mm() when the oom killer will kill something else) should be > addressed in 2.6.35-rc2, then that's a conversation to be had with Andrew. Well, we have bugfix-at-first development rule. Why do you refuse our development process? -- 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