From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754129AbcGVM0X (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2016 08:26:23 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:50121 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753531AbcGVM0W (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2016 08:26:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mempool: do not consume memory reserves from the reclaim path To: Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner References: <1468831164-26621-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <1468831285-27242-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <20160719135426.GA31229@cmpxchg.org> <20160720081541.GF11249@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160721085202.GC26379@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160721121300.GA21806@cmpxchg.org> <20160721145309.GR26379@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160722063720.GB794@dhcp22.suse.cz> Cc: David Rientjes , linux-mm@kvack.org, Mikulas Patocka , Ondrej Kozina , Tetsuo Handa , Mel Gorman , Neil Brown , Andrew Morton , LKML , dm-devel@redhat.com From: Vlastimil Babka Message-ID: <15177f2d-cd00-dade-fc25-12a0c241e8f5@suse.cz> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:26:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160722063720.GB794@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/22/2016 08:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 21-07-16 16:53:09, Michal Hocko wrote: >> From d64815758c212643cc1750774e2751721685059a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Michal Hocko >> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:40:59 +0200 >> Subject: [PATCH] Revert "mm, mempool: only set __GFP_NOMEMALLOC if there are >> free elements" >> >> This reverts commit f9054c70d28bc214b2857cf8db8269f4f45a5e23. > > I've noticed that Andrew has already picked this one up. Is anybody > against marking it for stable? It would be strange to have different behavior with known regression in 4.6 and 4.7 stables. Actually, there's still time for 4.7 proper? Vlastimil From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f70.google.com (mail-wm0-f70.google.com [74.125.82.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C55B46B025F for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 08:26:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f70.google.com with SMTP id p129so33378788wmp.3 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 05:26:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y70si9847095wme.88.2016.07.22.05.26.21 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Jul 2016 05:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mempool: do not consume memory reserves from the reclaim path References: <1468831164-26621-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <1468831285-27242-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <20160719135426.GA31229@cmpxchg.org> <20160720081541.GF11249@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160721085202.GC26379@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160721121300.GA21806@cmpxchg.org> <20160721145309.GR26379@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20160722063720.GB794@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Vlastimil Babka Message-ID: <15177f2d-cd00-dade-fc25-12a0c241e8f5@suse.cz> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:26:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160722063720.GB794@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner Cc: David Rientjes , linux-mm@kvack.org, Mikulas Patocka , Ondrej Kozina , Tetsuo Handa , Mel Gorman , Neil Brown , Andrew Morton , LKML , dm-devel@redhat.com On 07/22/2016 08:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 21-07-16 16:53:09, Michal Hocko wrote: >> From d64815758c212643cc1750774e2751721685059a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Michal Hocko >> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:40:59 +0200 >> Subject: [PATCH] Revert "mm, mempool: only set __GFP_NOMEMALLOC if there are >> free elements" >> >> This reverts commit f9054c70d28bc214b2857cf8db8269f4f45a5e23. > > I've noticed that Andrew has already picked this one up. Is anybody > against marking it for stable? It would be strange to have different behavior with known regression in 4.6 and 4.7 stables. Actually, there's still time for 4.7 proper? Vlastimil -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org