> 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.)
Hi Ben Honestly, I didn't prepare. If my remember is correct, you are debian guy. So, Can I think the backport 2.6.32.y help debian people? If so, it's good thing to increase my priority to do this. Thanks. _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
