Re: [merged] mm-page_alloc-reset-aging-cycle-with-gfp_thisnode-v2.patch removed from -mm tree

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:49:27 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:37:57PM -0800, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Subject: [merged] mm-page_alloc-reset-aging-cycle-with-gfp_thisnode-v2.patch removed from -mm tree
> > To: hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx,jstancek@xxxxxxxxxx,mgorman@xxxxxxx,riel@xxxxxxxxxx,stable@xxxxxxxxxx,mm-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > From: akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 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??
--
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/