Re: [PATCH] mm,oom: Don't call schedule_timeout_killable() with oom_lock held.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:28:01 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue 29-05-18 16:07:00, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:17:41 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > > I suggest applying
> > > > this patch first, and then fix "mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer" patch.
> > > 
> > > Well, I hope the whole pile gets merged in the upcoming merge window
> > > rather than stall even more.
> > 
> > I'm more inclined to drop it all.  David has identified significant
> > shortcomings and I'm not seeing a way of addressing those shortcomings
> > in a backward-compatible fashion.  Therefore there is no way forward
> > at present.
> 
> Well, I thought we have argued about those "shortcomings" back and forth
> and expressed that they are not really a problem for workloads which are
> going to use the feature. The backward compatibility has been explained
> as well AFAICT.

Feel free to re-explain.  It's the only way we'll get there.

David has proposed an alternative patchset.  IIRC Roman gave that a
one-line positive response but I don't think it has seen a lot of
attention?




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux