From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] oom: select_bad_process: check PF_KTHREAD instead of !mm to skip kthreads
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:54:03 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100602223612.F52D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1006011424200.16725@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > But yes, I agree, the problem is minor. But nevertheless it is bug,
> > the longstanding bug with the simple fix. Why should we "hide" this fix
> > inside the long series of non-trivial patches which rewrite oom-killer?
> > And it is completely orthogonal to other changes.
> >
>
> Again, the question is whether or not the fix is rc material or not,
> otherwise there's no difference in the route that it gets upstream: the
> patch is duplicated in both series. If you feel that this minor issue
> (which has never been reported in at least the last three years and
> doesn't have any side effects other than a couple of millisecond delay
> until unuse_mm() when the oom killer will kill something else) should be
> addressed in 2.6.35-rc2, then that's a conversation to be had with Andrew.
Well, we have bugfix-at-first development rule. Why do you refuse our
development process?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] oom: select_bad_process: check PF_KTHREAD instead of !mm to skip kthreads
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:54:03 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100602223612.F52D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1006011424200.16725@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > But yes, I agree, the problem is minor. But nevertheless it is bug,
> > the longstanding bug with the simple fix. Why should we "hide" this fix
> > inside the long series of non-trivial patches which rewrite oom-killer?
> > And it is completely orthogonal to other changes.
> >
>
> Again, the question is whether or not the fix is rc material or not,
> otherwise there's no difference in the route that it gets upstream: the
> patch is duplicated in both series. If you feel that this minor issue
> (which has never been reported in at least the last three years and
> doesn't have any side effects other than a couple of millisecond delay
> until unuse_mm() when the oom killer will kill something else) should be
> addressed in 2.6.35-rc2, then that's a conversation to be had with Andrew.
Well, we have bugfix-at-first development rule. Why do you refuse our
development process?
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-02 13:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 110+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-31 9:33 [PATCH 1/5] oom: select_bad_process: check PF_KTHREAD instead of !mm to skip kthreads KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-31 9:33 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-31 9:35 ` [PATCH 2/5] oom: select_bad_process: PF_EXITING check should take ->mm into account KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-31 9:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-31 16:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-31 16:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-01 1:10 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-01 1:10 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-01 20:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-01 20:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-02 13:54 ` [PATCH] oom: remove PF_EXITING check completely KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-02 13:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-02 15:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-02 15:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-02 21:02 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-02 21:02 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-03 4:48 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-03 4:48 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-03 6:29 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-03 6:29 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-02 13:54 ` [PATCH] oom: Make coredump interruptible KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-02 13:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-02 15:42 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-02 15:42 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-02 17:29 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-02 17:29 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-02 17:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-02 17:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-02 18:58 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-02 18:58 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-02 20:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-02 20:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-03 14:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-03 14:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-04 10:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-04 10:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-04 11:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-04 11:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-04 11:34 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-04 11:34 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-09 19:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-09 19:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-09 20:41 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-09 20:41 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-09 21:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-09 21:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-13 11:24 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-13 11:24 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-13 15:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-13 15:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-13 17:13 ` uninterruptible CLONE_VFORK (Was: oom: Make coredump interruptible) Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-13 17:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-14 0:56 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-14 0:56 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-14 16:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-14 16:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-14 19:17 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-14 19:17 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-28 17:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-28 17:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-28 18:04 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-28 18:04 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-14 0:36 ` [PATCH] oom: Make coredump interruptible Roland McGrath
2010-06-14 0:36 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-14 0:26 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-14 0:26 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-01 20:39 ` [PATCH 2/5] oom: select_bad_process: PF_EXITING check should take ->mm into account David Rientjes
2010-06-01 20:39 ` David Rientjes
2010-05-31 9:36 ` [PATCH 3/5] oom: introduce find_lock_task_mm() to fix !mm false positives KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-31 9:36 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-01 0:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-06-01 0:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-06-01 20:42 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-01 20:42 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-02 16:05 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-02 16:05 ` Minchan Kim
2010-05-31 9:37 ` [PATCH 4/5] oom: the points calculation of child processes must use find_lock_task_mm() too KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-31 9:37 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-31 16:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-31 16:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-31 23:48 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-31 23:48 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-31 9:38 ` [PATCH 5/5] oom: __oom_kill_task() " KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-31 9:38 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-01 1:02 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-06-01 1:02 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-06-01 20:44 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-01 20:44 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-01 0:54 ` [PATCH 1/5] oom: select_bad_process: check PF_KTHREAD instead of !mm to skip kthreads KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-06-01 0:54 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-06-01 20:36 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-01 20:36 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-01 21:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-01 21:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-01 21:26 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-01 21:26 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-02 13:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2010-06-02 13:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-06-02 21:09 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-02 21:09 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-02 21:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-02 21:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-02 21:46 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-02 21:46 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-03 14:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-03 14:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-03 20:11 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-03 20:11 ` David Rientjes
2010-06-02 15:32 ` Minchan Kim
2010-06-02 15:32 ` Minchan Kim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100602223612.F52D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.