lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [Stable-review] [48/70] vmscan: all_unreclaimable() use zone->all_unreclaimable as a name
Date
> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 13:08 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > 2.6.38-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> >
> > commit 929bea7c714220fc76ce3f75bef9056477c28e74 upstream.
> >
> > all_unreclaimable check in direct reclaim has been introduced at 2.6.19
> > by following commit.
> >
> > 2006 Sep 25; commit 408d8544; oom: use unreclaimable info
> >
> > And it went through strange history. firstly, following commit broke
> > the logic unintentionally.
> >
> > 2008 Apr 29; commit a41f24ea; page allocator: smarter retry of
> > costly-order allocations
> [...]
>
> So presumably this needs to be fixed in 2.6.32.y and other longterm
> series as well. Though there seems to be a whole series of fixes
> required in 2.6.32.y!
>
> Are you going to look after that, or should someone else prepare
> backports? (I'm certainly not volunteering - I don't have the VM
> knowledge to work out what needs doing.)

Hi Ben

Honestly, I didn't prepare. If my remember is correct, you are debian
guy. So, Can I think the backport 2.6.32.y help debian people? If so,
it's good thing to increase my priority to do this.

Thanks.





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-21 06:27    [W:0.072 / U:0.740 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site