[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <15177f2d-cd00-dade-fc25-12a0c241e8f5@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:26:19 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Ondrej Kozina <okozina@...hat.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mempool: do not consume memory reserves from the
reclaim path
On 07/22/2016 08:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 21-07-16 16:53:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> From d64815758c212643cc1750774e2751721685059a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:40:59 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] Revert "mm, mempool: only set __GFP_NOMEMALLOC if there are
>> free elements"
>>
>> This reverts commit f9054c70d28bc214b2857cf8db8269f4f45a5e23.
>
> I've noticed that Andrew has already picked this one up. Is anybody
> against marking it for stable?
It would be strange to have different behavior with known regression in
4.6 and 4.7 stables. Actually, there's still time for 4.7 proper?
Vlastimil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists