Re: [Stable-review] [48/70] vmscan: all_unreclaimable() usezone->all_unreclaimable as a name

[Ben Hutchings]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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.)

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/