On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 13:34:24 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > I just spent a happy half hour reliving this thread and ended up > > deciding I agreed with everyone! I appears that many more emails are > > needed so I think I'll drop > > http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/mm-memcg-avoid-oom-notification-when-current-needs-access-to-memory-reserves.patch > > for now. > > > > The claim that > > mm-memcg-avoid-oom-notification-when-current-needs-access-to-memory-reserves.patch > > will impact existing userspace seems a bit dubious to me. > > > > I'm not sure why this was dropped since it's vitally needed for any sane > userspace oom handler to be effective. It was dropped because the other memcg developers disagreed with it. I'd really prefer not to have to spend a great amount of time parsing argumentative and repetitive emails to make a tie-break decision which may well be wrong anyway. Please work with the other guys to find an acceptable implementation. There must be *something* we can do? -- 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>