* Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed 30-03-16 15:32:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 01:58:14PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I have tested on x86 with OOM situations with high mmap_sem contention > > > (basically many parallel page faults racing with many parallel mmap/munmap > > > tight loops) so the waiters for the write locks are routinely interrupted > > > by SIGKILL. > > > > Aside from the one niggle (as per the other email) they look good to me > > and I would take them through the tip/locking tree. > > Thanks for the review! I understand that tip/locking would be the most > appropriate place [...] Yes. > [...] but I am wondering whether this causes some issues with the follow up > patches which use this new API and which I expect to go via Andrew's tree. So AFAIK Andrew's tree is based on top of linux-next, so once it goes into tip:locking/core, -mm can pick it up as well 1-2 days later. Please send the changes in isolation, for merge into the locking tree. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
