From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-gg0-f181.google.com (mail-gg0-f181.google.com [209.85.161.181]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D499C6B0035 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 17:14:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-gg0-f181.google.com with SMTP id 21so1071254ggh.12 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:14:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gg0-x22c.google.com (mail-gg0-x22c.google.com [2607:f8b0:4002:c02::22c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 44si17995484yhf.12.2014.01.12.14.14.10 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:14:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-gg0-f172.google.com with SMTP id x14so664404ggx.3 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:14:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:14:07 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs access to memory reserves In-Reply-To: <20140110223420.GE6963@cmpxchg.org> Message-ID: References: <20131218200434.GA4161@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20131219144134.GH10855@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20140107162503.f751e880410f61a109cdcc2b@linux-foundation.org> <20140109144757.e95616b4280c049b22743a15@linux-foundation.org> <20140110083025.GE9437@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20140110223420.GE6963@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > Your patch, which is partially based on my suggestion to move the > > mem_cgroup_oom_notify() and call it from two places to support both > > memory.oom_control == 1 and != 1, is something that I liked as you know. > > It's based on my patch which is now removed from -mm. So if you want to > > rebase that patch and propose it, that's great, but this is yet another > > occurrence of where important patches have been yanked out just before the > > merge window when the problem they are fixing is real and we depend on > > them. > > We tried to discuss and understand the problem, yet all we got was > "it's OBVIOUS" and "Google has been using this patch ever since we > switched to memcg" and flat out repetitions of the same points about > reliable OOM notification that were already put into question. > > You still have not convinced me that the problem exists as you > described it, apart from the aspects that Michal is now fixing > separately because you did not show any signs of cooperating. > I cooperated by suggesting his patch which moves the mem_cgroup_oom_notify(), Johannes. The problem is that it depends on my patch which was removed from -mm. He can rebase that patch, but I'm hoping it is done before the merge window for inclusion in 3.14. > None of this will change until you start working with us and actually > address feedback and inquiries instead of just repeating your talking > points over and over. > I worked with Michal, who acked my patch, and then wrote another patch on top of it based partially on my suggestion, Johannes. -- 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