From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52136B0099 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:20:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:19:52 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] oom-kill: add lowmem usage aware oom kill handling Message-Id: <20100126161952.ee267d1c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20100127085355.f5306e78.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20100121145905.84a362bb.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100122152332.750f50d9.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100125151503.49060e74.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100126151202.75bd9347.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100127085355.f5306e78.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: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , rientjes@google.com, minchan.kim@gmail.com, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" List-ID: On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:53:55 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > Hardly anyone will know to enable > > it so the feature won't get much testing and this binary decision > > fractures the testing effort. It would be much better if we can get > > everyone running the same code. I mean, if there are certain workloads > > on certain machines with which the oom-killer doesn't behave correctly > > then fix it! > Yes, I think you're right. But "breaking current behaviro of our servers!" > arguments kills all proposal to this area and this oom-killer or vmscan is > a feature should be tested by real users. (I'll write fork-bomb detector > and RSS based OOM again.) Well don't break their servers then ;) What I'm not understanding is: why is it not possible to improve the behaviour on the affected machines without affecting the behaviour on other machines? What are these "servers" to which you refer? x86_32 servers, I assume - the patch shouldn't affect 64-bit machines. Why don't they also want this treatment and in what way does the patch "break" them? -- 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