From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C02416B01AD for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 02:01:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o5461ktJ023676 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 4 Jun 2010 15:01:46 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58CDF45DE6F for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 15:01:46 +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 2938245DE60 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 15:01:46 +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 0ED831DB8037 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 15:01:46 +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 A7E20E38004 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 15:01:42 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:57:23 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [patch -mm 08/18] oom: badness heuristic rewrite Message-Id: <20100604145723.e16d7fe0.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20100604092047.7b7d7bb1.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20100601163627.245D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100602225252.F536.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100603161030.074d9b98.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100604085347.80c7b43f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100603170443.011fdf7c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100604092047.7b7d7bb1.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Andrew Morton , KOSAKI Motohiro , David Rientjes , Rik van Riel , Nick Piggin , Oleg Nesterov , Balbir Singh , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 09:20:47 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 17:04:43 -0700 > Andrew Morton 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: email@kvack.org