From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17487C433EF for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 07:59:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF29661051 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 07:59:03 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org BF29661051 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 508896B0071; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 03:59:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 492516B0072; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 03:59:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 35A186B0073; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 03:59:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0176.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.176]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A9236B0071 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 03:59:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin08.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D133208C for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 07:59:02 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78748724124.08.16E47F3 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D273000099 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 07:58:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C2982170C; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 07:59:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1635494341; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=odAS8sgFS/yEmejWu7NJNIJLSMk/FVvAVCyrDC5g/Vg=; b=tARIzmNRgXCWQw3SqRLM4bM+8BOcV8c26nHWRLEbv5UMpbdC7IM8l2j7fKveYfhp8gG/iF tL/wlOiibrOaSq6rbrbEhp+7ap7CV2JAwrJiJ+pLBlJWmNVycJdhoPNUXMPhRQ8IatfB+z dZSPt9wxYTmhbIxaU8JZj6jUv5ulxIg= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 353ECA3B84; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 07:59:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:58:59 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Andrew Morton Cc: Vasily Averin , Johannes Weiner , Vladimir Davydov , Roman Gushchin , Uladzislau Rezki , Vlastimil Babka , Shakeel Butt , Mel Gorman , Tetsuo Handa , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@openvz.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH memcg v3 3/3] memcg: prohibit unconditional exceeding the limit of dying tasks Message-ID: References: <8f5cebbb-06da-4902-91f0-6566fc4b4203@virtuozzo.com> <20211027153608.9910f7db99d5ef574045370e@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211027153608.9910f7db99d5ef574045370e@linux-foundation.org> X-Stat-Signature: uegdp75ym1e19m81zq3u6h8fg7mkutq3 Authentication-Results: imf03.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=tARIzmNR; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass (imf03.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 54D273000099 X-HE-Tag: 1635494337-268773 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed 27-10-21 15:36:08, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:36:41 +0200 Michal Hocko wrote: > > > My view on stable backport is similar to the previous patch. If we want > > to have it there then let's wait for some time to see whether there are > > any fallouts as this patch depends on the PF_OOM change. > > It's strange that [1/3] doesn't have cc:stable, but [2/3] and [3/3] do > not. What is the thinking here? > > I expect we'd be OK with merging these into 5.16-rc1. This still gives > another couple of months in -rc to shake out any problems. But I > suspect the -stable maintainers will merge and release the patches > before they are released in 5.16. > > In which case an alternative would be not to mark these patches > cc:stable and to somehow remember to ask the -stable maintainers to > merge them after 5.16 has been on the streets for a suitable period. My take on stable backports is http://lkml.kernel.org/r/YXZ6FMzJLEz4TA2d@dhcp22.suse.cz -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs