Roman Gushchin wrote:

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 06:13:47AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:

quoted

No response from Roman and David...

Andrew, will you once drop Roman's cgroup-aware OOM killer and David's patches?
Roman's series has a bug which I mentioned and which can be avoided by my patch.
David's patch is using MMF_UNSTABLE incorrectly such that it might start selecting
next OOM victim without trying to reclaim any memory.

Since they are not responding to my mail, I suggest once dropping from linux-next.

I was in cc, and didn't thought that you're expecting something from me.

Oops. I was waiting for your response. ;-)

  But Roman, my patch conflicts with your "mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer" patch
  in linux-next. And it seems to me that your patch contains a bug which leads to
  premature memory allocation failure explained below.

  Can we apply my patch prior to your "mm, oom: cgroup-aware OOM killer" patch
  (which eliminates "delay" and "out:" from your patch) so that people can easily
  backport my patch? Or, do you want to apply a fix (which eliminates "delay" and
  "out:" from linux-next) prior to my patch?

I don't get, why it's necessary to drop the cgroup oom killer to merge your fix?
I'm happy to help with rebasing and everything else.

Yes, I wish you rebase your series on top of OOM lockup (CVE-2016-10723) mitigation
patch ( https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=153112243424285&w=4 ). It is a trivial change
and easy to cleanly backport (if applied before your series).

Also, I expect you to check whether my cleanup patch which removes "abort" path
( [PATCH 1/2] at https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=153119509215026&w=4 ) helps
simplifying your series. I don't know detailed behavior of your series, but I
assume that your series do not kill threads which current thread should not wait
for MMF_OOM_SKIP.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html