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 34BEB6B01AD for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2010 20:25:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.76]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o540P6Lo008092 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:25:06 +0900 Received: from smail (m6 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F84145DE50 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:25:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.96]) by m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2557345DE4C for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:25:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30051DB8015 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:25:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.106]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC5CC1DB8012 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:25:05 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:20:47 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [patch -mm 08/18] oom: badness heuristic rewrite Message-Id: <20100604092047.7b7d7bb1.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20100603170443.011fdf7c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20100601163627.245D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100602225252.F536.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100603161030.074d9b98.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100604085347.80c7b43f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100603170443.011fdf7c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , David Rientjes , Rik van Riel , Nick Piggin , Oleg Nesterov , Balbir Singh , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 17:04:43 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > Sure, bugfixes should come separately and first. For a number of > reasons: > > - people (including the -stable maintainers) might want to backport them > > - we might end up not merging the larger, bugfix-including patches at all > > - the large bugfix-including patches might blow up and need > reverting. If we do that, we accidentally revert bugfixes! > > Have we identified specifically which bugfixes should be separated out > in this fashion? > In my personal observation [1/18] for better behavior under cpuset. [2/18] for better behavior under cpuset. [3/18] for better behavior under mempolicy. [4/18] refactoring. [5/18] refactoring. [6/18] clean up. [7/18] changing the deault sysctl value. [8/18] completely new logic. [9/18] completely new logic. [10/18] a supplement for 8,9. [11/18] for better behavior under lowmem oom (disable oom kill) [12/18] clean up [13/18] bugfix for a possible race condition. (I'm not sure about details) [14/18] bugfix [15/18] bugfix [16/18] bugfix [17/18] bugfix [18/18] clean up. If distro admins are aggresive, them may backport 1,2,3,7,11 but it changes current logic. So, it's distro's decision. 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