On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Michal Hocko wrote: > I have already explained why I have acked it. I will not repeat > it here again. I have also proposed an alternative solution > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/12/174) which IMO is more viable because > it handles both user/kernel memcg OOM consistently. This patch still has > to be discussed because of other Johannes concerns. I plan to repost it > in a near future. > This three ring circus has to end. Really. Your patch, which is partially based on my suggestion to move the mem_cgroup_oom_notify() and call it from two places to support both memory.oom_control == 1 and != 1, is something that I liked as you know. It's based on my patch which is now removed from -mm. So if you want to rebase that patch and propose it, that's great, but this is yet another occurrence of where important patches have been yanked out just before the merge window when the problem they are fixing is real and we depend on them. Please post your rebased patch ASAP for the 3.14 merge window. -- 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>