From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753534AbcGVTov (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:44:51 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:54554 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752104AbcGVTou (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:44:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 12:44:48 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , David Rientjes , linux-mm@kvack.org, Mikulas Patocka , Ondrej Kozina , Tetsuo Handa , Mel Gorman , Neil Brown , LKML , dm-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mempool: do not consume memory reserves from the reclaim path Message-Id: <20160722124448.ad6f9b8be8fe1552b076096c@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <15177f2d-cd00-dade-fc25-12a0c241e8f5@suse.cz> 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> <15177f2d-cd00-dade-fc25-12a0c241e8f5@suse.cz> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; 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 Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:26:19 +0200 Vlastimil Babka wrote: > 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? > I added the cc:stable. Do we need to bust a gut to rush it into 4.7? It sounds safer to let it bake for a while, fix it in 4.7.1?