Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 06:13:47AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > No response from Roman and David... > > > > Andrew, will you once drop Roman's cgroup-aware OOM killer and David's patches? > > Roman's series has a bug which I mentioned and which can be avoided by my patch. > > David's patch is using MMF_UNSTABLE incorrectly such that it might start selecting > > next OOM victim without trying to reclaim any memory. > > > > Since they are not responding to my mail, I suggest once dropping from linux-next. > > I was in cc, and didn't thought that you're expecting something from me. Oops. I was waiting for your response. ;-) But Roman, my patch conflicts with your "mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer" patch in linux-next. And it seems to me that your patch contains a bug which leads to premature memory allocation failure explained below. Can we apply my patch prior to your "mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer" patch (which eliminates "delay" and "out:" from your patch) so that people can easily backport my patch? Or, do you want to apply a fix (which eliminates "delay" and "out:" from linux-next) prior to my patch? > > I don't get, why it's necessary to drop the cgroup oom killer to merge your fix? > I'm happy to help with rebasing and everything else. Yes, I wish you rebase your series on top of OOM lockup (CVE-2016-10723) mitigation patch ( https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=153112243424285&w=4 ). It is a trivial change and easy to cleanly backport (if applied before your series). Also, I expect you to check whether my cleanup patch which removes "abort" path ( [PATCH 1/2] at https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=153119509215026&w=4 ) helps simplifying your series. I don't know detailed behavior of your series, but I assume that your series do not kill threads which current thread should not wait for MMF_OOM_SKIP. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
