On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:23:50PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > It was dropped because the other memcg developers disagreed with it. > > > > > > > > > > It was acked-by Michal. Michal acked it before we had most of the discussions and now he is proposing an alternate version of yours, a patch that you are even discussing with him concurrently in another thread. To claim he is still backing your patch because of that initial ack is disingenuous. > > And Johannes? > > > > Johannes is arguing for the same semantics that VMPRESSURE_CRITICAL and/or > memory thresholds provides, which disagrees from the list of solutions > that Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt gives for userspace oom handler > wakeups and is required for any sane implementation. No, he's not and I'm sick of you repeating refuted garbage like this. You have convinced neither me nor Michal that your problem is entirely real and when confronted with doubt you just repeat the same points over and over. The one aspect of your change that we DO agree is valid is now fixed by Michal in a separate attempt because you could not be bothered to incorporate feedback into your patch. -- 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>