On 2018/06/04 20:22, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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? > Yes, for it is a regression fix which I expected to be in time for 4.17. I want to apply it before OOM killer code gets complicated by cgroup-aware OOM killer.
