[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090611163006.e985639f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:30:06 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: mel@....ul.ie, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, riel@...hat.com,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
linuxram@...ibm.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix malloc() stall in zone_reclaim() and bring
behaviour more in line with expectations V3
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:47:50 +0100
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> The big change with this release is that the patch reintroducing
> zone_reclaim_interval has been dropped as Ram reports the malloc() stalls
> have been resolved. If this bug occurs again, the counter will be there to
> help us identify the situation.
What is the exact relationship between this work and the somewhat
mangled "[PATCH for mmotm 0/5] introduce swap-backed-file-mapped count
and fix
vmscan-change-the-number-of-the-unmapped-files-in-zone-reclaim.patch"
series?
That five-patch series had me thinking that it was time to drop
vmscan-change-the-number-of-the-unmapped-files-in-zone-reclaim.patch
vmscan-drop-pf_swapwrite-from-zone_reclaim.patch
vmscan-zone_reclaim-use-may_swap.patch
(they can be removed cleanly, but I haven't tried compiling the result)
but your series is based on those.
We have 142 MM patches queued, and we need to merge next week.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists