[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1303357246.3464.136.camel@localhost>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 04:40:46 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
stable-review@...nel.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [Stable-review] [48/70] vmscan: all_unreclaimable() use
zone->all_unreclaimable as a name
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 13:08 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> 2.6.38-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
>
> ------------------
>
> From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
>
> commit 929bea7c714220fc76ce3f75bef9056477c28e74 upstream.
>
> all_unreclaimable check in direct reclaim has been introduced at 2.6.19
> by following commit.
>
> 2006 Sep 25; commit 408d8544; oom: use unreclaimable info
>
> And it went through strange history. firstly, following commit broke
> the logic unintentionally.
>
> 2008 Apr 29; commit a41f24ea; page allocator: smarter retry of
> costly-order allocations
[...]
So presumably this needs to be fixed in 2.6.32.y and other longterm
series as well. Though there seems to be a whole series of fixes
required in 2.6.32.y!
Are you going to look after that, or should someone else prepare
backports? (I'm certainly not volunteering - I don't have the VM
knowledge to work out what needs doing.)
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
--
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