From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754646AbZEDXDY (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 19:03:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753248AbZEDXDP (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 19:03:15 -0400 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:42275 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753117AbZEDXDO (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 19:03:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 15:59:36 -0700 From: Greg KH To: David Rientjes Cc: Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , San Mehat , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] oom: cleanup android low memory killer Message-ID: <20090504225936.GA9876@kroah.com> References: <20090504220905.GA29402@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 03:35:08PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 4 May 2009, Greg KH wrote: > > > Are these the patches already in my tree? > > > > If so, David, just respin your patches against the linux-next tree and > > resend them, that should be sufficient. > > > > This patch in the series is really more of a convenience than anything > else since it doesn't change anything functionally. I had to modify the > lowmemorykiller later because there's a potential for a NULL pointer from > dereferencing p->mm without holding task_lock(p) and also because I moved > oomkilladj from struct task_struct to struct mm_struct. Is this still the case on top of Arve's changes? > The entire patchset is really based on the move of p->oomkilladj since it > allows us to prevent an oom killer livelock when killing a task that > shares memory with an OOM_DISABLE task. That change obviously has to go > through Andrew but lowmemorykiller.c must be also be changed accordingly. > > I'd be fine with dropping my lowmemorykiller changes if they'd like to fix > this up themselves. Otherwise, I need to know the path to which these get > into the kernel. Right now, people are still arguing that the android low memory driver is not needed, but something is, yet no one has proposed a viable solution for all parties :( thanks, greg k-h