On Mon 17-12-12 19:23:01, azurIt wrote: > >[Ohh, I am really an idiot. I screwed the first patch] > >- bool oom = true; > >+ bool oom = !(gfp_mask | GFP_MEMCG_NO_OOM); > > > >Which obviously doesn't work. It should read !(gfp_mask &GFP_MEMCG_NO_OOM). > > No idea how I could have missed that. I am really sorry about that. > > > :D no problem :) so, now it should really work as expected and > completely fix my original problem? It should mitigate the problem. The real fix shouldn't be that specific (as per discussion in other thread). The chance this will get upstream is not big and that means that it will not get to the stable tree either. > is it safe to apply it on 3.2.35? I didn't check what are the differences but I do not think there is anything to conflict with it. > Thank you very much! HTH -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>