> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > There is no deadlock being introduced by this patch; if you have an > > > example of one, then please show it. The problem is not just overkill but > > > rather panicking the machine when no other eligible processes exist. We > > > have seen this in production quite a few times and we'd like to see this > > > patch merged to avoid our machines panicking because the oom killer, by > > > your patch, isn't considering threads that are eligible in the exit path > > > once their parent has been killed and has exited itself yet memory freeing > > > isn't possible yet because the threads still pin the ->mm. > > > > No. While you don't understand current code, I'll not taking yours. > > > > I take this as you declining to show your example of a deadlock introduced > by this patch as requested. There is no such deadlock. The patch is > reintroducing the behavior of the oom killer that existed for years before > you broke it and caused many of ours machines to panic as a result. > > Thanks for your review. How do you proof no deadlock? No, you can't. Don't pray to work as you hope. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>