From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753844AbaCFV4w (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:56:52 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:35923 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752725AbaCFV4g (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:56:36 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:56:35 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Johannes Weiner Cc: stable@kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, mgorman@suse.de, jstancek@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [merged] mm-page_alloc-reset-aging-cycle-with-gfp_thisnode-v2.patch removed from -mm tree Message-Id: <20140306135635.6999d703429afb7fd3949304@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20140306214927.GB11171@cmpxchg.org> References: <5318dca5.AwhU/92X21JgbpdE%akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20140306214927.GB11171@cmpxchg.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.2.0beta5 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:49:27 -0500 Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:37:57PM -0800, akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote: > > Subject: [merged] mm-page_alloc-reset-aging-cycle-with-gfp_thisnode-v2.patch removed from -mm tree > > To: hannes@cmpxchg.org,jstancek@redhat.com,mgorman@suse.de,riel@redhat.com,stable@kernel.org,mm-commits@vger.kernel.org > > From: akpm@linux-foundation.org > > Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:37:57 -0800 > > > > > > The patch titled > > Subject: mm: page_alloc: exempt GFP_THISNODE allocations from zone fairness > > has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was > > mm-page_alloc-reset-aging-cycle-with-gfp_thisnode-v2.patch > > > > This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree > > Would it make sense to also merge > > mm-fix-gfp_thisnode-callers-and-clarify.patch > > at this point? It's not as critical as the GFP_THISNODE exemption, > which is why I didn't tag it for stable, but it's a bugfix as well. Changelog fail! : GFP_THISNODE is for callers that implement their own clever fallback to : remote nodes, and so no direct reclaim is invoked. There are many current : users that only want node exclusiveness but still want reclaim to make the : allocation happen. Convert them over to __GFP_THISNODE and update the : documentation to clarify GFP_THISNODE semantics. what bug does it fix and what are the user-visible effects??