From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261775AbULJRud (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:50:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261776AbULJRud (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:50:33 -0500 Received: from mail-relay-2.tiscali.it ([213.205.33.42]:61921 "EHLO mail-relay-2.tiscali.it") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261775AbULJRuP (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:50:15 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:49:38 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: William Lee Irwin III , Andrew Morton , marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] oom killer (Core) Message-ID: <20041210174938.GX16322@dualathlon.random> References: <20041201104820.1.patchmail@tglx> <20041210163247.GM2714@holomorphy.com> <1102697553.3306.91.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1102697553.3306.91.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> 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 Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 05:52:33PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > I'm wondering why he did not post the final version. Andrea ??? I already posted the final version since it had no bugs and I asked to get it merged twice. The only bugs are obviously in the drivers (or the callers) and they needs urgent fixing and additionally the might_sleep_if must stop checking if the system is running so these bugs can see the light of the day. Not being allowed to schedule in alloc_pages with __GFP_WAIT set is a mistake. Your patch was orthogonal to mine, so I didn't merge it. Go figure that every time I post something it gets splitted into trivial pieces, so it's a waste of time to try to merge any additional patch and post a final one since it'll never be final anyway. I am about to merge the things together for some other tree (not mainline), that is a worthwhile effort but with the split behaviour of mainline, for mainline it'd be a waste of time. One last thing worth discussing on my side is if we should worry about the tiny race between the watermark checks and the entering of the oom killing. In theory we could wrap the thing around a semaphore and close the race completely, though current code is simpler and as you find it works fine in practice.