On Mon, 24 May 2010, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > I've been notified that my entire oom killer rewrite has been dropped from > > > -mm based solely on your feedback. The problem is that I have absolutely > > > no idea what issues you have with the changes that haven't already been > > > addressed (nobody else does, either, it seems). > > I had exactly the same issues with the userland kernel API changes and > the pagefault OOM regression it introduced, which I told you months ago. > You ignored me, it seems. > No, I didn't ignore you, your comments were specifically addressed with oom-reintroduce-and-deprecate-oom_kill_allocating_task.patch which only deprecated the API change and wasn't even scheduled for removal until of the end of 2011. So there were no kernel API changes that went unaddressed, perhaps you just didn't see that patch (I cc'd it to you on April 27, though). The pagefault oom behavior can now be changed back since you've converted all existing architectures to call into the oom killer and not simply kill current (thanks for that work!). Previously, there was an inconsistency amongst architectures in panic_on_oom behavior that we can now unify into semantics that work across the board. I've made that change in my latest patch series which I'll be posting shortly. Thanks for the feedback! -- 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>