On Mon 04-06-18 19:41:01, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > 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. Is it that urgent that it cannot wait until after the merge window when thing should settle down? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
