[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimzby23QO4w0o1vSHnin9AakoG+cp9zd6a8T6FA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:47:02 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"M. Vefa Bicakci" <bicave@...eronline.com>, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vmscan: check all_unreclaimable in direct reclaim path
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> On Sunday, September 12, 2010, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> Adnrew, Please drop my old version and merge this verstion.
>> (old : vmscan-check-all_unreclaimable-in-direct-reclaim-path.patch)
>>
>> * Changelog from v2
>> * remove inline - suggested by Andrew
>> * add function desription - suggeseted by Adnrew
>>
>> == CUT HERE ==
>
> For the record, this commit:
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=6715045ddc7472a22be5e49d4047d2d89b391f45
>
> is reported to fix the problem without the $subject patch (see
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/9/11/129). So, I'm not sure if it's still necessary
> to special case this particular situation?
I didn't follow your patch.
If your patch can fix the problem, We don't need new overhead direct
reclaim without big benefit. So I don't care of dropping this patch.
We need agreement of another author KOSAKI.
Thanks for the information, Rafael. :)
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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