lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] mm: page allocator: Adjust the per-cpu counter threshold when memory is low
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:07:02 -0800 (PST)
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > We had to pull aa454840 "mm: page allocator: calculate a better estimate
> > > of NR_FREE_PAGES when memory is low and kswapd is awake" from 2.6.36
> > > internally because tests showed that it would cause the machine to stall
> > > as the result of heavy kswapd activity. I merged it back with this fix as
> > > it is pending in the -mm tree and it solves the issue we were seeing, so I
> > > definitely think this should be pushed to -stable (and I would seriously
> > > consider it for 2.6.37 inclusion even at this late date).
> >
> > How's about I send
> > mm-page-allocator-adjust-the-per-cpu-counter-threshold-when-memory-is-low.patch
> > in for 2.6.38 and tag it for backporting into 2.6.37.1 and 2.6.36.x?
> > That way it'll get a bit of 2.6.38-rc testing before being merged into
> > 2.6.37.x.
> >
>
> I don't think anyone would be able to answer that judgment call other than
> you or Linus, it's a trade-off on whether 2.6.37 should be released with
> the knowledge that it regresses just like 2.6.36 does (rendering both
> unusable on some of our machines out of the box) because we're late in the
> cycle.
>
> I personally think the testing is already sufficient since it's been
> sitting in -mm for two months, it's been suggested as stable material by a
> couple different parties, it was a prerequisite for the transparent
> hugepage series, and we've tested and merged it as fixing the regression
> in 2.6.36 (as Fedora has, as far as I know). We've already merged the fix
> internally, though, so it's not for selfish reasons :)

Wibble, wobble. It's good that the patch has been used in RH kernels.
otoh, the patch is really quite big and the problem was present in
2.6.36 without a lot of complaints and we're very late in -rc and not
many people will be testing over xmas/newyear, and it would be most sad
to put badness into mainline at this time.

So I'm still inclined to go with (discretion > valour).


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-12-24 00:23    [W:0.078 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site