On 2018/06/04 16:04, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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. > Is current version of "mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer" patchset going to be dropped for now? I want to know which state should I use for baseline for my patch.
