On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Michal Hocko wrote: > The patch looks good but we still need other 2 patches > (http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/68578), right? > For the lguest patch, Rusty is the maintainer and has already acked the patch, so I think it should be merged through him. I don't see a need for the second patch since we'll now detect frozen oom killed tasks on retry and don't need to kill them directly when oom killed (it just adds additional, unnecessary code). > Anyway, I thought that we agreed on the other approach suggested by > Tejun (make frozen tasks oom killable without thawing). Even in that > case we want the first patch > (http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/68576). If that's possible, then we can just add Tejun to add a follow-up patch to remove the thaw directly in the oom killer. I'm thinking that won't be possible for 3.2, though, so I don't know why we'd remove oom-thaw-threads-if-oom-killed-thread-is-frozen-before-deferring.patch from -mm? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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>