On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 02:46:06AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > 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 OK, you still never justified why that change is needed, or why it is even a cleanup at all. You need actually a *good* reason to change the user kernel API. A slight difference in opinion of what the sysctls should be, or a slight change in implementation in the kernel, is not a good reason in the slightest. Look at something like /proc/sys/fs/inode-state and dentry-state or the old syscalls we accumulate. The point about not many people using the parameters I don't think is a good one. 2.6.32 is being used in the next enterprise kernels so they are going to be in production for 5 or more years. How many people will have written scripts by the time they upgrade? > 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. Thanks that would be good. I'll do another pass shortly to make sure all archs are converted in this window if possible. > I've made that change in my latest patch series which I'll be posting > shortly. The other thing is that it makes perfect sense to put controversial changes on hold even if you still think you can make a case for them. We could have already gotten *most* (and the most useful to you) of it merged by now. Then if there is a single controversial patch rather than a big series, Andrew or Linus say is much more likely to take a look and weigh in. -- 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>