On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:04:27 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > fyi, I still consider these patches to be in the "stuck" state. So we > > need to get them unstuck. > > > > > > Hiroyuki (and anyone else): could you please summarise in the briefest > > way possible what your objections are to Daivd's oom-killer changes? > > > > I'll start: we don't change the kernel ABI. Ever. And when we _do_ > > change it we don't change it without warning. > > > > I'm not going to allow a simple cleanup to jeopardize the entire patchset, > so I can write a patch that readds /proc/sys/vm/oom_kill_allocating_task > that simply mirrors the setting of /proc/sys/vm/oom_kill_quick and then > warn about its deprecation. Yeah, I welcome it. > I don't believe we need to do the same thing > for the removal of /proc/sys/vm/oom_dump_tasks since that functionality is > now enabled by default. > But *warning* is always apprecieated and will not make the whole patches too dirty. So, please write one. BTW, I don't think there is an admin who turns off oom_dump_task.. So, just keeping interface and putting this one to feature-removal-list is okay for me if you want to cleanup sysctl possibly. Talking about myself, I also want to remove/cleanup some interface under memcg which is rarely used. But I don't do because we have users. And I'll not to clean up as far as we can maintain it. Then, we have to be careful to add interfaces. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>