On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:49:27 -0500 Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:37:57PM -0800, [email protected] wrote: > > Subject: [merged] > > mm-page_alloc-reset-aging-cycle-with-gfp_thisnode-v2.patch removed from -mm > > tree > > To: > > [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected] > > From: [email protected] > > Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:37:57 -0800 > > > > > > The patch titled > > Subject: mm: page_alloc: exempt GFP_THISNODE allocations from zone > > fairness > > has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was > > mm-page_alloc-reset-aging-cycle-with-gfp_thisnode-v2.patch > > > > This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem > > tree > > Would it make sense to also merge > > mm-fix-gfp_thisnode-callers-and-clarify.patch > > at this point? It's not as critical as the GFP_THISNODE exemption, > which is why I didn't tag it for stable, but it's a bugfix as well. Changelog fail! : GFP_THISNODE is for callers that implement their own clever fallback to : remote nodes, and so no direct reclaim is invoked. There are many current : users that only want node exclusiveness but still want reclaim to make the : allocation happen. Convert them over to __GFP_THISNODE and update the : documentation to clarify GFP_THISNODE semantics. what bug does it fix and what are the user-visible effects?? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
