lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 1/2] mm, memcg: avoid oom notification when current needs access to memory reserves
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote:

> > Your patch, which is partially based on my suggestion to move the
> > mem_cgroup_oom_notify() and call it from two places to support both
> > memory.oom_control == 1 and != 1, is something that I liked as you know.
> > It's based on my patch which is now removed from -mm. So if you want to
> > rebase that patch and propose it, that's great, but this is yet another
> > occurrence of where important patches have been yanked out just before the
> > merge window when the problem they are fixing is real and we depend on
> > them.
>
> We tried to discuss and understand the problem, yet all we got was
> "it's OBVIOUS" and "Google has been using this patch ever since we
> switched to memcg" and flat out repetitions of the same points about
> reliable OOM notification that were already put into question.
>
> You still have not convinced me that the problem exists as you
> described it, apart from the aspects that Michal is now fixing
> separately because you did not show any signs of cooperating.
>

I cooperated by suggesting his patch which moves the
mem_cgroup_oom_notify(), Johannes. The problem is that it depends on my
patch which was removed from -mm. He can rebase that patch, but I'm
hoping it is done before the merge window for inclusion in 3.14.

> None of this will change until you start working with us and actually
> address feedback and inquiries instead of just repeating your talking
> points over and over.
>

I worked with Michal, who acked my patch, and then wrote another patch on
top of it based partially on my suggestion, Johannes.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-13 00:01    [W:0.707 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site