Re: [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs access to memory reserves

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>]

On Sun 12-01-14 14:10:49, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> 
> > > > > It was acked-by Michal.
> > 
> > Michal acked it before we had most of the discussions and now he is
> > proposing an alternate version of yours, a patch that you are even
> > discussing with him concurrently in another thread.  To claim he is
> > still backing your patch because of that initial ack is disingenuous.
> > 
> 
> His patch depends on mine, Johannes.

Does it? Are we talking about the same patch here?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/12/174

Which depends on yours only to revert your part. I plan to repost it but
that still doesn't mean it will get merged because Johannes still has
some argumnets against. I would like to start the discussion again
because now we are so deep in circles that it is hard to come up with a
reasonable outcome. It is still hard to e.g. agree on an actual fix
for a real problem https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/12/129.

While notification might be an issue as well it is more of a corner case
than a regular one. So let's try to move on, agree on the "oom vs.
PF_EXITING) first and lay out discussion for the notification in a new
threa. Shall we?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>