From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2878F8D0039 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 19:24:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9C753EE081 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:24:46 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0B5245DE69 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:24:46 +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 9707045DD74 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:24:46 +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 8AFC8E08003 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:24:46 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.133]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A1F1DB802C for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:24:46 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [patch] oom: prevent unnecessary oom kills or kernel panics In-Reply-To: References: <20110306201408.6CC6.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-Id: <20110308092413.8AA1.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:24:45 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Oleg Nesterov , Hugh Dickins , linux-mm@kvack.org > On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > There is no deadlock being introduced by this patch; if you have an > > > example of one, then please show it. The problem is not just overkill but > > > rather panicking the machine when no other eligible processes exist. We > > > have seen this in production quite a few times and we'd like to see this > > > patch merged to avoid our machines panicking because the oom killer, by > > > your patch, isn't considering threads that are eligible in the exit path > > > once their parent has been killed and has exited itself yet memory freeing > > > isn't possible yet because the threads still pin the ->mm. > > > > No. While you don't understand current code, I'll not taking yours. > > > > I take this as you declining to show your example of a deadlock introduced > by this patch as requested. There is no such deadlock. The patch is > reintroducing the behavior of the oom killer that existed for years before > you broke it and caused many of ours machines to panic as a result. > > Thanks for your review. Do I need to talk the same again. I don't take your buggy patch. That's all. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org