[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090612084456.b6e4edb6.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:44:56 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, linuxram@...ibm.com,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Do not unconditionally treat zones that fail
zone_reclaim() as full
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:36:17 +0100 Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:48:53AM -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > It needs to be mentioned that this fixes a bug introduced in 2.6.19.
> > Possibly a portion of this code needs to be backported to stable.
> >
>
> Andrew has sucked up the patch already so I can't patch it. Andrew, there
> is a further note below on the patch if you'd like to pick it up.
OK.
> On the stable front, I'm think that patches 1 and 2 should being considered
> -stable candidates. Patch 1 is certainly needed because it fixes up the
> malloc() stall and should be picked up by distro kernels as well. This patch
> closes another obvious hole albeit one harder to trigger.
>
> Ideally patch 3 would also be in -stable so distro kernels will suck it up
> as it will help identify this problem in the field if it occurs again but
> I'm not sure what the -stable policy is on such things are.
Well, I tagged the patches for stable but they don't apply at all well
to even 2.6.30 base.
--
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