From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92FE26B003D for ; Thu, 7 May 2009 04:49:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] mm: SLUB fix reclaim_state From: Pekka Enberg In-Reply-To: <20090506134236.GA3012@wotan.suse.de> References: <20090505091343.706910164@suse.de> <20090505091434.312182900@suse.de> <1241594430.15411.3.camel@penberg-laptop> <20090506134236.GA3012@wotan.suse.de> Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 11:50:40 +0300 Message-Id: <1241686240.17846.19.camel@penberg-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: stable@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Matt Mackall , Christoph Lameter , akpm@linux-foundation.org List-ID: Hi Nick, On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 15:42 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > I have applied the patch series. I see you have cc'd stable so I assume > > you want this in 2.6.30, right? This seems like a rather serious bug but > > Thanks. I think it makes sense to into 2.6.30. Also probably all active > .stable kernels. > > > > I wonder why we've gotten away with it for so long? Is there a test > > program or a known workload that breaks without this? > > Well... it isn't doing what reclaim code wants, and it is differing > behaviour between SLAB and SL?B, so I think it is fairly safe to > merge these now. > > It doesn't look like too much *significant* changes to heuristics, but > things will get skewed here and there. Yeah, that's my thinking too. Oh, well, I'll forward it to Linus' way and let the stable guys decide whether they want to take it or not. Pekka -- 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