Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Jun 2010 14:09:23 -0700 (PDT) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |