From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S261723AbULOAT2@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S261723AbULOAT2 (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:19:28 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261782AbULOATF
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:19:05 -0500
Received: from mail-relay-4.tiscali.it ([213.205.33.44]:40841 "EHLO
	mail-relay-4.tiscali.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S261723AbULNX4a (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:56:30 -0500
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:55:49 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Martin =?utf-8?Q?MOKREJ=C5=A0?= <mmokrejs@ribosome.natur.cuni.cz>,
       tglx@linutronix.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       piggin@cyberone.com.au, chris@tebibyte.org,
       marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       linux-mm@kvack.org, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix spurious OOM kills
Message-ID: <20041214235549.GT16322@dualathlon.random>
References: <419FB4CD.7090601@ribosome.natur.cuni.cz> <1101037999.23692.5.camel@thomas> <41A08765.7030402@ribosome.natur.cuni.cz> <1101045469.23692.16.camel@thomas> <1101120922.19380.17.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> <41A2E98E.7090109@ribosome.natur.cuni.cz> <1101205649.3888.6.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> <41BF0F0D.4000408@ribosome.natur.cuni.cz> <20041214173858.GJ16322@dualathlon.random> <1103067018.5420.37.camel@npiggin-nld.site>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1103067018.5420.37.camel@npiggin-nld.site>
X-GPG-Key: 1024D/68B9CB43 13D9 8355 295F 4823 7C49  C012 DFA1 686E 68B9 CB43
X-PGP-Key: 1024R/CB4660B9 CC A0 71 81 F4 A0 63 AC  C0 4B 81 1D 8C 15 C8 E5
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 10:30:18AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Was there some swap-token (or can anyone think of any relevant)
> changes recently?

The only thing I know about recent swap-token changes, is that Andrew
fixed a bug by ignoring the token thing at priority 0, this the
early-oom failures in my queue (the VM bug was introduced sometime
before or during 2.6.9-rc). The fix is already in mainline according to
my out of sync copy of kernel CVS.