lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCHv16 0/9] Contiguous Memory Allocator
    On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 18:27:06 +0200
    Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:

    > On Thursday 06 October 2011, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
    > > Once again I decided to post an updated version of the Contiguous Memory
    > > Allocator patches.
    > >
    > > This version provides mainly a bugfix for a very rare issue that might
    > > have changed migration type of the CMA page blocks resulting in dropping
    > > CMA features from the affected page block and causing memory allocation
    > > to fail. Also the issue reported by Dave Hansen has been fixed.
    > >
    > > This version also introduces basic support for x86 architecture, what
    > > allows wide testing on KVM/QEMU emulators and all common x86 boxes. I
    > > hope this will result in wider testing, comments and easier merging to
    > > mainline.
    >
    > Hi Marek,
    >
    > I think we need to finally get this into linux-next now, to get some
    > broader testing. Having the x86 patch definitely helps here becauses
    > it potentially exposes the code to many more testers.
    >
    > IMHO it would be good to merge the entire series into 3.2, since
    > the ARM portion fixes an important bug (double mapping of memory
    > ranges with conflicting attributes) that we've lived with for far
    > too long, but it really depends on how everyone sees the risk
    > for regressions here. If something breaks in unfixable ways before
    > the 3.2 release, we can always revert the patches and have another
    > try later.
    >
    > It's also not clear how we should merge it. Ideally the first bunch
    > would go through linux-mm, and the architecture specific patches
    > through the respective architecture trees, but there is an obvious
    > inderdependency between these sets.
    >
    > Russell, Andrew, are you both comfortable with putting the entire
    > set into linux-mm to solve this? Do you see this as 3.2 or rather
    > as 3.3 material?
    >

    Russell's going to hate me, but...

    I do know that he had substantial objections to at least earlier
    versions of this, and he is a guy who knows of what he speaks.

    So I would want to get a nod from rmk on this work before proceeding.
    If that nod isn't available then let's please identify the issues and
    see what we can do about them.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-10-11 00:59    [W:5.102 / U:0.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site