lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] oom: select_bad_process: check PF_KTHREAD instead of !mm to skip kthreads
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> > 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?
>

This isn't a bugfix, it simply prevents a recall to the oom killer after
the kthread has called unuse_mm(). Please show where any side effects of
oom killing a kthread, which cannot exit, as a result of use_mm() causes a
problem _anywhere_.

If that's the definition you have for a "bugfix," then I could certainly
argue that some of my patches like "oom: filter tasks not sharing the same
cpuset" is a bugfix because it allows needlessly killing tasks that won't
free memory for current, or "oom: avoid oom killer for lowmem allocations"
is a bugfix because it allows killing a task that won't free lowmem, etc.

I agree that this is a nice patch to have to avoid that recall later,
which is why I merged it into my patchset, but let's please be accurate
about its impact.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-02 23:11    [W:0.081 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site