[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160122122106.c4e85c4501a049ad123e6153@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 12:21:06 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...uxfoundation.org>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: Rework virtual memory accounting
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:42:11 +0100 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com> wrote:
> On 12/28/2015 11:22 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> >> Really sorry for delays. Konstantin, I slightly updated the
> >> changelog (to point where problem came from). Linus are you
> >> fine with accounting not only anonymous memory in VmData?
> >
> > The patch looks ok to me. I guess if somebody relies on old behavior
> > we may have to tweak it a bit, but on the whole this looks sane and
> > I'd be happy to merge it in the 4.5 merge window (and maybe even have
> > it marked for stable if it works out)
> >
>
> Just want to mention that this patch breaks older versions of valgrind
> (including the current release)
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=357833
> It is fixed in trunk (and even triggered some good cleanups, so the valgrind
> developers do NOT want it to get reverted). Rawhide already has the valgrind
> fix, others might not, so if we consider this for stable, things might break
> here and there, but in general this looks like a good cleanup.
>
OK, thanks - that sounds reasonable, although a bit worrisome - what
other userspace was affected? In some cases people won't find out for
years...
84638335900f199 ("mm: rework virtual memory accounting") did not have
the cc:stable tag so it should avoid the -stable dragnet.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists