On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > 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. > > We tried to discuss and understand the problem, yet all we got was > "it's OBVIOUS" and "Google has been using this patch ever since we > switched to memcg" and flat out repetitions of the same points about > reliable OOM notification that were already put into question. > > You still have not convinced me that the problem exists as you > described it, apart from the aspects that Michal is now fixing > separately because you did not show any signs of cooperating. > I cooperated by suggesting his patch which moves the mem_cgroup_oom_notify(), Johannes. The problem is that it depends on my patch which was removed from -mm. He can rebase that patch, but I'm hoping it is done before the merge window for inclusion in 3.14. > None of this will change until you start working with us and actually > address feedback and inquiries instead of just repeating your talking > points over and over. > I worked with Michal, who acked my patch, and then wrote another patch on top of it based partially on my suggestion, Johannes. -- 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>