Re: [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needsaccess to memory reserves

[David Rientjes]

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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/