On Thu 09-11-17 13:25:19, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 09-11-17 21:19:24, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > So, I believe that the changelog is not wrong, and I don't want to preserve > > > > > > > > keep very high watermark here, this is only to catch a parallel oom killing, > > > > we must fail if we're still under heavy pressure > > > > > > > > part which lost strong background. > > > > > > I do not see how. You simply do not address the original concern Andrea > > > had and keep repeating unrelated stuff. > > > > What does "address the original concern Andrea had" mean? > > I'm still thinking that the original concern Andrea had is no longer > > valid in the current code because precondition has changed. > > I am sorry but I am not going to repeat myself. In any case, if you want to change high->low watermark for the last allocation then it deserves a separate patch with the justification, user visible changes. All you do here is to make the comment disagree with the code which is not an improvement at all. Quite contrary I would dare to say. -- 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>
