Re: [patch -mm 08/18] oom: badness heuristic rewrite

From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm 08/18] oom: badness heuristic rewrite
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:57:23 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100604145723.e16d7fe0.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100604092047.7b7d7bb1.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:20:47 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 17:04:43 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > Sure, bugfixes should come separately and first.  For a number of
> > reasons:
> > 
> > - people (including the -stable maintainers) might want to backport them
> > 
> > - we might end up not merging the larger, bugfix-including patches at all
> > 
> > - the large bugfix-including patches might blow up and need
> >   reverting.  If we do that, we accidentally revert bugfixes!
> > 
> > Have we identified specifically which bugfixes should be separated out
> > in this fashion?
> > 
> 
> In my personal observation
> 
>  [1/18]  for better behavior under cpuset.
>  [2/18]  for better behavior under cpuset.
>  [3/18]  for better behavior under mempolicy.
>  [4/18]  refactoring.
>  [5/18]  refactoring.
>  [6/18]  clean up.
>  [7/18]  changing the deault sysctl value.
>  [8/18]  completely new logic.
>  [9/18]  completely new logic.
>  [10/18] a supplement for 8,9.
>  [11/18] for better behavior under lowmem oom (disable oom kill)
>  [12/18] clean up
>  [13/18] bugfix for a possible race condition. (I'm not sure about details)
>  [14/18] bugfix
>  [15/18] bugfix
>  [16/18] bugfix
>  [17/18] bugfix
>  [18/18] clean up.
> 
> If distro admins are aggresive, them may backport 1,2,3,7,11 but
> it changes current logic. So, it's distro's decision.
> 

IMHO, without considering HUNKs, the patch order should be

  13,14,15,16,17,1,2,3,7,11,4,5,6,18,12,8,9,10.

bugfix -> patches for things making better -> refactoring -> the new implementation.

David, I have no objections to functions itself. But please start from small
good things. "Refactoring" is good but it tend to make backporting
not-straightforward. So, I think it should be done when there is no known issues.
I think you can do.

Bye,
-Kame

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>