On Thu 03-08-17 17:03:20, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > > Look, I really appreciate your sentiment for for nommu platform but with > > an absolute lack of _any_ oom reports on that platform that I am aware > > of nor any reports about lockups during oom I am less than thrilled to > > add a code to fix a problem which even might not exist. Nommu is usually > > very special with a very specific workload running (e.g. no overcommit) > > so I strongly suspect that any OOM theories are highly academic. > > If you believe that there is really no oom report, get rid of the OOM > killer completely. I am not an user or even an owner of such a platform. As I've said all I care about is to not regress for those guys and I believe that the patch doesn't change nommu behavior in any risky way. If yes, point them out and I will try to address them. > > All I do care about is to not regress nommu as much as possible. So can > > we get back to the proposed patch and updates I have done to address > > your review feedback please? > > No unless we get rid of the OOM killer if CONFIG_MMU=n. Are you saying that you are going to nack the patch based on this reasoning? This is just ridiculous. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
