From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E721D6B01AC for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 17:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.65]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o52L9RSd030244 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 14:09:27 -0700 Received: from pxi15 (pxi15.prod.google.com [10.243.27.15]) by wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o52L9QFB032206 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 14:09:26 -0700 Received: by pxi15 with SMTP id 15so1733525pxi.30 for ; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 14:09:23 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] oom: select_bad_process: check PF_KTHREAD instead of !mm to skip kthreads In-Reply-To: <20100602223612.F52D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <20100601212023.GA24917@redhat.com> <20100602223612.F52D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Oleg Nesterov , LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Nick Piggin List-ID: On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > Again, the question is whether or not the fix is rc material or not, > > otherwise there's no difference in the route that it gets upstream: the > > patch is duplicated in both series. If you feel that this minor issue > > (which has never been reported in at least the last three years and > > doesn't have any side effects other than a couple of millisecond delay > > until unuse_mm() when the oom killer will kill something else) should be > > addressed in 2.6.35-rc2, then that's a conversation to be had with Andrew. > > Well, we have bugfix-at-first development rule. Why do you refuse our > development process? > This isn't a bugfix, it simply prevents a recall to the oom killer after the kthread has called unuse_mm(). Please show where any side effects of oom killing a kthread, which cannot exit, as a result of use_mm() causes a problem _anywhere_. If that's the definition you have for a "bugfix," then I could certainly argue that some of my patches like "oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset" is a bugfix because it allows needlessly killing tasks that won't free memory for current, or "oom: avoid oom killer for lowmem allocations" is a bugfix because it allows killing a task that won't free lowmem, etc. I agree that this is a nice patch to have to avoid that recall later, which is why I merged it into my patchset, but let's please be accurate about its impact. -- 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