On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

It was acked-by Michal.

Michal acked it before we had most of the discussions and now he is
proposing an alternate version of yours, a patch that you are even
discussing with him concurrently in another thread.  To claim he is
still backing your patch because of that initial ack is disingenuous.

His patch depends on mine, Johannes.

quoted

Johannes is arguing for the same semantics that VMPRESSURE_CRITICAL and/or 
memory thresholds provides, which disagrees from the list of solutions 
that Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt gives for userspace oom handler 
wakeups and is required for any sane implementation.

No, he's not and I'm sick of you repeating refuted garbage like this.

You have convinced neither me nor Michal that your problem is entirely
real and when confronted with doubt you just repeat the same points
over and over.

The conditional to check if current needs access to memory reserves to 
make forward progress and avoid oom killing anything else is done after 
the memcg notification.  It's real per section 6.8.4 of the C99 standard 
which defines how a conditional works.  We do not want a userspace 
notification in such a case because userspace testing of whether the 
condition is actionable would be unreliable.  This is not dead code, it 
does get executed.

The one aspect of your change that we DO agree is valid is now fixed
by Michal in a separate attempt because you could not be bothered to
incorporate feedback into your patch.

I suggested his patch, Johannes, but his patch depends on mine.  I'm 
hoping he can rebase his patch and it's done and merged into -mm before 
the merge window for 3.14 as I've stated.

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>