From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] page allocator: Do not allow interrupts to use ALLOC_HARDER Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:09:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20091027130924.fa903f5a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1256650833-15516-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1256650833-15516-3-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1256650833-15516-3-git-send-email-mel-wPRd99KPJ+uzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Mel Gorman Cc: stable-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org\"" , Frans Pop , Jiri Kosina , Sven Geggus , Karol Lewandowski , Tobias Oetiker , KOSAKI Motohiro , Pekka Enberg , Rik van Riel , Christoph Lameter , Stephan von Krawczynski , "Kernel Testers List , Mel Gorman "@linux-foundation.org On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:40:32 +0000 Mel Gorman wrote: > Commit 341ce06f69abfafa31b9468410a13dbd60e2b237 altered watermark logic > slightly by allowing rt_tasks that are handling an interrupt to set > ALLOC_HARDER. This patch brings the watermark logic more in line with > 2.6.30. > > [rientjes-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org: Spotted the problem] > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman > Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg > Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel > Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro > --- > mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > index dfa4362..7f2aa3e 100644 > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -1769,7 +1769,7 @@ gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_t gfp_mask) > * See also cpuset_zone_allowed() comment in kernel/cpuset.c. > */ > alloc_flags &= ~ALLOC_CPUSET; > - } else if (unlikely(rt_task(p))) > + } else if (unlikely(rt_task(p)) && !in_interrupt()) > alloc_flags |= ALLOC_HARDER; > > if (likely(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMALLOC))) { What are the runtime-observeable effects of this change? The description is a bit waffly-sounding for a -stable backportable thing, IMO. What reason do the -stable maintainers and users have to believe that this patch is needed, and an improvement?