On 2018/09/07 20:10, Michal Hocko wrote: >> I can't waste my time in what you think the long term solution. Please >> don't refuse/ignore my (or David's) patches without your counter >> patches. > > If you do not care about long term sanity of the code and if you do not > care about a larger picture then I am not interested in any patches from > you. MM code is far from trivial and no playground. This attitude of > yours is just dangerous. > Then, please explain how we guarantee that enough CPU resource is spent between "exit_mmap() set MMF_OOM_SKIP" and "the OOM killer finds MMF_OOM_SKIP was already set" so that last second allocation with high watermark can't fail when 50% of available memory was already reclaimed.
