From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3B46B004F for ; Wed, 6 May 2009 12:36:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:34:41 -0500 From: Matt Mackall Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] mm: SLUB fix reclaim_state Message-ID: <20090506163440.GV31071@waste.org> References: <20090505091343.706910164@suse.de> <20090505091434.312182900@suse.de> <1241594430.15411.3.camel@penberg-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1241594430.15411.3.camel@penberg-laptop> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Pekka Enberg Cc: npiggin@suse.de, stable@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Christoph Lameter , akpm@linux-foundation.org List-ID: On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:20:30AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 19:13 +1000, npiggin@suse.de wrote: > > plain text document attachment (mm-slub-fix-reclaim_state.patch) > > SLUB does not correctly account reclaim_state.reclaimed_slab, so it will > > break memory reclaim. Account it like SLAB does. > > > > Cc: stable@kernel.org > > Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org > > Cc: Pekka Enberg > > Cc: Matt Mackall > > Cc: Christoph Lameter > > Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin > > 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 > 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? Appears to me to be less a correctness than a balancing issue. reclaim state is a back channel into the shrink code that says 'yes, this is working'. Without it, things should still work, but possibly not as smoothly. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. -- 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