linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mempool: do not consume memory reserves from the reclaim path

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 23 Jul 2016 20:52:20 +0200
From:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	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>,
	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 09:44 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:26:19 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
> 
>> 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?
>>
> 
> I added the cc:stable.
> 
> Do we need to bust a gut to rush it into 4.7?  It sounds safer to let
> it bake for a while, fix it in 4.7.1?

Yeah, I guess it's safer to wait now. Would be different if the reverted
commit went in the same cycle.

> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
>