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 907626B002D for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:54:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E94676F.2030302@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:57:35 -0400 From: KOSAKI Motohiro MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch v2] oom: thaw threads if oom killed thread is frozen before deferring References: <20111011063336.GA23284@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <4E9457BA.8060002@jp.fujitsu.com> <20111011151412.GF23284@tiehlicka.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20111011151412.GF23284@tiehlicka.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: mhocko@suse.cz Cc: rientjes@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, rjw@sisk.pl, linux-mm@kvack.org, htejun@gmail.com > To sum up. There are 3 patches flying around at the moment. > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/68576 > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/68577 > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/68583 > > They are approaching the problem by thawing oom selected frozen task. > > Tejun mentioned his work (sorry I do not have a link to patches) that > should enable direct killing frozen tasks. This would mean that we do > not need any special handling from the OOM code paths AFAIU. This would > be much better of course and I guess we can wait for them for 3.2. > > Does this make sense? I don't find any bad in the idea. So, I have two questions. o Who are writing such patch now? o Should we drop current drientjes patch? -- 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