From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:50948 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752679AbbHNRdy (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:33:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:33:54 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Michal Hocko Cc: Hugh Dickins , kernel@kyup.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm, vmscan: Do not wait for page writeback for GFP_NOFS" failed to apply to 4.1-stable tree Message-ID: <20150814173354.GB4125@kroah.com> References: <143950481199181@kroah.com> <20150814023503.GA6285@kroah.com> <20150814070037.GB32091@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150814070037.GB32091@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 . > > > > > > > > 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