On Fri 01-06-18 14:11:10, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. OK, I will go and my points to the last version of the patchset. > 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? I plan to go and revisit that. My preliminary feedback is that a more generic policy API is really tricky and the patchset has many holes there. But I will come with a more specific feedback in the respective thread. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
