From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E5B0E6B01EF for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o3M0RMbs018478 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:27:22 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8BF45DE6E for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:27:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8F445DE60 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:27:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 141E81DB803A for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:27:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.103]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2FA1DB8037 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:27:18 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:23:24 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [patch -mm] memcg: make oom killer a no-op when no killable task can be found Message-Id: <20100422092324.3900c5d4.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20100407092050.48c8fc3d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100407205418.FB90.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100421121758.af52f6e0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , KOSAKI Motohiro , anfei , nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp, Balbir Singh , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:04:27 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > fyi, I still consider these patches to be in the "stuck" state. So we > > need to get them unstuck. > > > > > > Hiroyuki (and anyone else): could you please summarise in the briefest > > way possible what your objections are to Daivd's oom-killer changes? > > > > I'll start: we don't change the kernel ABI. Ever. And when we _do_ > > change it we don't change it without warning. > > > > I'm not going to allow a simple cleanup to jeopardize the entire patchset, > so I can write a patch that readds /proc/sys/vm/oom_kill_allocating_task > that simply mirrors the setting of /proc/sys/vm/oom_kill_quick and then > warn about its deprecation. Yeah, I welcome it. > I don't believe we need to do the same thing > for the removal of /proc/sys/vm/oom_dump_tasks since that functionality is > now enabled by default. > But *warning* is always apprecieated and will not make the whole patches too dirty. So, please write one. BTW, I don't think there is an admin who turns off oom_dump_task.. So, just keeping interface and putting this one to feature-removal-list is okay for me if you want to cleanup sysctl possibly. Talking about myself, I also want to remove/cleanup some interface under memcg which is rarely used. But I don't do because we have users. And I'll not to clean up as far as we can maintain it. Then, we have to be careful to add interfaces. Thanks, -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: email@kvack.org