lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-06-02 23:11    [W:2.729 / U:0.064 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site