From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E03C433FE for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 22:36:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610CB610E7 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 22:36:13 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 610CB610E7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 91615940007; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 18:36:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 8C6596B0072; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 18:36:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 7B549940007; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 18:36:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0249.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.249]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510FC6B0071 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 18:36:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin37.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC0D5182067B3 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 22:36:11 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78743676942.37.3F484F0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F36BC3000247 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 22:36:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D0F29610CB; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 22:36:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1635374170; bh=zeRXlf3fAzntvGnBMpDwMgonqEP9pBriRbcBLNzhnE8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=voGDb2zXrSVNrVTxvYv+5pMhCPRA3F8fwGVSJ7e4sGicSa89iz8fbmPQ5IDUj6bbB /7BX5p6IZvMH1BZP+4LX56HqXYw5bE76pXVRLoi98OHqHA5a8vD16kOneRNlBRbsGG uykElR9RFUVO+G11QXqJr8RFcQrPCNZlTWAsud4Q= Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 15:36:08 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Michal Hocko Cc: Vasily Averin , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Roman Gushchin , Uladzislau Rezki , Vlastimil Babka , Shakeel Butt , Mel Gorman , Tetsuo Handa , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@openvz.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg v3 3/3] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the limit of dying tasks Message-Id: <20211027153608.9910f7db99d5ef574045370e@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <8f5cebbb-06da-4902-91f0-6566fc4b4203@virtuozzo.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Stat-Signature: usegk98o683ruqgzmmetifswpbwaf4b8 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: F36BC3000247 Authentication-Results: imf08.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux-foundation.org header.s=korg header.b=voGDb2zX; dmarc=none; spf=pass (imf08.hostedemail.com: domain of akpm@linux-foundation.org designates 198.145.29.99 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=akpm@linux-foundation.org X-HE-Tag: 1635374163-192057 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:36:41 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > My view on stable backport is similar to the previous patch. If we want > to have it there then let's wait for some time to see whether there are > any fallouts as this patch depends on the PF_OOM change. It's strange that [1/3] doesn't have cc:stable, but [2/3] and [3/3] do not. What is the thinking here? I expect we'd be OK with merging these into 5.16-rc1. This still gives another couple of months in -rc to shake out any problems. But I suspect the -stable maintainers will merge and release the patches before they are released in 5.16. In which case an alternative would be not to mark these patches cc:stable and to somehow remember to ask the -stable maintainers to merge them after 5.16 has been on the streets for a suitable period. Greg, thoughts?