On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 05:42:15PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 05:17:16PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > >> I'd prefer to see OOM-related issues treated as a separate-but-related > >> problem if possible so; > > > > I prefer it too. The OOM killing is already covered in OOM topic from > > Hugh, and we can add "OOM detection latency" to it. > > Thanks for adjusting and updating the schedule, Andrea. I'm way > behind in my mailbox and everything else, that was a real help. Glad I could help. > But last night I did remove that OOM and fork-bomb topic you > mischievously added in my name ;-) Yes, I did propose an OOM topic > against my name in the working list I sent you a few days ago, but by > Monday had concluded that it would be pretty silly for me to get up > and spout the few things I have to say about it, in the absence of > every one of the people most closely involved and experienced. And on > fork-bombs I've even less to say. > > Of course, none of these sessions are for those named facilitators to > lecture the assembled company for half an hour. We can bring it back > it there's demand on the day: but right now I'd prefer to keep it as > an empty slot, to be decided when the time comes. After all, those FS > people, they appear to thrive on empty slots! Ok, and agree that the MM track is pretty dense already ;). Thanks, Andrea -- 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>