[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091027130924.fa903f5a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:09:24 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: stable@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@...ck.org\"" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>,
Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>,
Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@...net.com>,
"Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>"@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] page allocator: Do not allow interrupts to use
ALLOC_HARDER
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:40:32 +0000
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> Commit 341ce06f69abfafa31b9468410a13dbd60e2b237 altered watermark logic
> slightly by allowing rt_tasks that are handling an interrupt to set
> ALLOC_HARDER. This patch brings the watermark logic more in line with
> 2.6.30.
>
> [rientjes@...gle.com: Spotted the problem]
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
> Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
> Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index dfa4362..7f2aa3e 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1769,7 +1769,7 @@ gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> * See also cpuset_zone_allowed() comment in kernel/cpuset.c.
> */
> alloc_flags &= ~ALLOC_CPUSET;
> - } else if (unlikely(rt_task(p)))
> + } else if (unlikely(rt_task(p)) && !in_interrupt())
> alloc_flags |= ALLOC_HARDER;
>
> if (likely(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMALLOC))) {
What are the runtime-observeable effects of this change?
The description is a bit waffly-sounding for a -stable backportable
thing, IMO. What reason do the -stable maintainers and users have to
believe that this patch is needed, and an improvement?
--
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