From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761409AbXGJUJT (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:09:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757557AbXGJUJF (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:09:05 -0400 Received: from netops-testserver-4-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:43734 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756015AbXGJUJE (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:09:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:09:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: clameter@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com To: Andrew Morton cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 In-Reply-To: <20070710013152.ef2cd200.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: References: <20070710013152.ef2cd200.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > slub-exploit-page-mobility-to-increase-allocation-order.patch > slub-reduce-antifrag-max-order.patch > > These are slub changes which are dependent on Mel's stuff, and I have a note > here that there were reports of page allocation failures with these. What's > up with that? Those were fixed and all has been well since as far as I know. > Maybe I should just drop the 100-odd marginal-looking MM patches? We're > simply not showing compelling reasons for merging them and quite a lot of them > are stuck in a 90% complete state. As far as I can tell the antifrag patches are stable and are significantly enhancing various aspects of the VM and also make it more reliable. SLUB can use it to increase scalability. MM has been using order 3 allocs via SLUB for months now without a problem. Without the antifrag patches order 1 allocs could cause OOMs. It opens the door for functionality that we wanted for a long time such a memory unplug etc.