On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:14 AM Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 22:24:40 +0200 Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > > Hi Peter, > > > > Iirc you've been involved at least somewhat in discussing this. -mm folks > > are a bit undecided whether these new non_block semantics are a good idea. > > Michal Hocko still is in support, but Andrew Morton and Jason Gunthorpe > > are less enthusiastic. Jason said he's ok with merging the hmm side of > > this if scheduler folks ack. If not, then I'll respin with the > > preempt_disable/enable instead like in v1. > > I became mollified once Michel explained the rationale. I think it's > OK. It's very specific to the oom reaper and hopefully won't be used > more widely(?).
Yeah, no plans for that from me. And I hope the comment above them now explains why they exist, so people think twice before using it in random places. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
