On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > Again, the question is whether or not the fix is rc material or not, > > otherwise there's no difference in the route that it gets upstream: the > > patch is duplicated in both series. If you feel that this minor issue > > (which has never been reported in at least the last three years and > > doesn't have any side effects other than a couple of millisecond delay > > until unuse_mm() when the oom killer will kill something else) should be > > addressed in 2.6.35-rc2, then that's a conversation to be had with Andrew. > > Well, we have bugfix-at-first development rule. Why do you refuse our > development process? > This isn't a bugfix, it simply prevents a recall to the oom killer after the kthread has called unuse_mm(). Please show where any side effects of oom killing a kthread, which cannot exit, as a result of use_mm() causes a problem _anywhere_. If that's the definition you have for a "bugfix," then I could certainly argue that some of my patches like "oom: filter tasks not sharing the same cpuset" is a bugfix because it allows needlessly killing tasks that won't free memory for current, or "oom: avoid oom killer for lowmem allocations" is a bugfix because it allows killing a task that won't free lowmem, etc. I agree that this is a nice patch to have to avoid that recall later, which is why I merged it into my patchset, but let's please be accurate about its impact. -- 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>