Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm, vmscan: Do not wait for page writeback for GFP_NOFS" failed to apply to 4.1-stable tree

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 09:00:37AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 13-08-15 19:35:03, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 04:24:10PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Thu, 13 Aug 2015, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > The patch below does not apply to the 4.1-stable tree.
> > > > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> > > > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> > > > id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
> > > > 
> > > > thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > greg k-h
> > > > 
> > > ------------ commit in Linus's tree adjusted to 4.1.5 -------------
> > 
> > Thanks for this.  Should it also be backported to older kernels as well?
> 
> Yes 3.9+ would be appreciated as per Hugh's testing 
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LSU.2.11.1508032227050.5070%40eggly.anvils
> "
> And more testing on the history of it, considering your stable 3.6+
> designation that I wasn't satisfied with.  Getting out that USB stick
> again, I find that 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 all OOM if their __GFP_IO test
> is updated to a may_enter_fs test; but something happened in 3.9
> to make it and subsequent releases safe with the may_enter_fs test.
> You can certainly argue that the remote chance of a deadlock is
> worse than the fair chance of a spurious OOM; but if you insist
> on 3.6+, then I think it would have to go back even further,
> because we marked that commit for stable itself.  I suggest 3.9+.
> "

Ok, I've applied this to 3.10 and 3.14-stable trees.  For 3.10, it had
to be done by hand, so if you could verify I got it right, that would be
appreciated (the whole comment block change didn't apply, but the if()
change did.)

thanks,

greg k-h