linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Fix excessive CPU usage during compaction

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]

Message-ID: <7ad2cbdc-8589-3aa2-b16a-41336f849f65@suse.cz>
Date:   Sun, 29 Jan 2023 19:03:54 +0100
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@...il.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Fix excessive CPU usage during compaction

On 1/26/23 02:11, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:44:30 +0000 Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:
> 
> If we drop Vlastimil's reversion and apply this, the whole series
> should be cc:stable and it isn't really designed for that.
> 
> So I think either
> 
> a) drop Vlastimil's reversion and persuade Mel to send us a minimal
>    version of patch #4 for -stable consumption.  Patches 1-3 of this
>    series come later.
> 
> b) go ahead with Vlastimil's revert for -stable, queue up this
>    series for 6.3-rc1 and redo the original "fix set skip in
>    fast_find_migrateblock" some time in the future.
> 
> If we go with b) then the Fixes: tag in "[PATCH 4/4] mm, compaction:
> Finish pageblocks on complete migration failure" is inappropriate -
> fixing a reverted commit which Vlastimil's revert already fixed.
> 
> I'll plan on b) for now.

Agreed with the plan b). I couldn't review this yet due to being sick,
but I doubt I would have enough confidence to fast-track the series to
6.2 and 6.1-stable. It's subtle enough area and extra time in -next and
full -rc cycle will help.