On Tue 11-10-11 16:36:28, David Rientjes wrote: > 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). OK, my understanding was that we need both patches, but you are right, the later one should be sufficient. > > > 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. OK > 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? No need for that then. Thanks -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic -- 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>