On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 13:08 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > 2.6.38-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. > > ------------------ > > From: KOSAKI Motohiro <[email protected]> > > commit 929bea7c714220fc76ce3f75bef9056477c28e74 upstream. > > all_unreclaimable check in direct reclaim has been introduced at 2.6.19 > by following commit. > > 2006 Sep 25; commit 408d8544; oom: use unreclaimable info > > And it went through strange history. firstly, following commit broke > the logic unintentionally. > > 2008 Apr 29; commit a41f24ea; page allocator: smarter retry of > costly-order allocations [...]
So presumably this needs to be fixed in 2.6.32.y and other longterm series as well. Though there seems to be a whole series of fixes required in 2.6.32.y! Are you going to look after that, or should someone else prepare backports? (I'm certainly not volunteering - I don't have the VM knowledge to work out what needs doing.) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse. _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
