Michal Hocko wrote: > > I do understand the upsides you're advocating for - although you > > haven't quantified them. They're just not worth the downsides. > > OK, fair enough. Let's drop the patch then. There is no _strong_ > justification for it and what I've seen as "nice to have" is indeed > really hard to quantify and not really worth merging without a full > consensus. Dropping "mm,oom: move last second allocation to inside the OOM killer" means dropping "mm,oom: remove oom_lock serialization from the OOM reaper" together, right? The latter patch helped mitigating schedule_timeout_killable(1) lockup problem though... Also, what is the alternative for "mm,oom: use ALLOC_OOM for OOM victim's last second allocation" ? I proposed "mm, oom: task_will_free_mem(current) should ignore MMF_OOM_SKIP for once." and rejected by you. I also proposed "mm,oom: Set ->signal->oom_mm to all thread groups sharing the victim's mm." and rejected by you. -- 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>
