On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 06:33:03PM +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:22:33 +0100
> Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Commit 341ce06f69abfafa31b9468410a13dbd60e2b237 altered watermark logic
> > slightly by allowing rt_tasks that are handling an interrupt to set
> > ALLOC_HARDER. This patch brings the watermark logic more in line with
> > 2.6.30.
> >
> > [rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx: Spotted the problem]
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index dfa4362..7f2aa3e 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -1769,7 +1769,7 @@ gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > * See also cpuset_zone_allowed() comment in kernel/cpuset.c.
> > */
> > alloc_flags &= ~ALLOC_CPUSET;
> > - } else if (unlikely(rt_task(p)))
> > + } else if (unlikely(rt_task(p)) && !in_interrupt())
> > alloc_flags |= ALLOC_HARDER;
> >
> > if (likely(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMALLOC))) {
> > --
> > 1.6.3.3
> >
>
> Is it correct that this one applies offset -54 lines in 2.6.31.4 ?
>
In this case, it's ok. It's just a harmless heads-up that the kernel
looks slightly different than expected. I posted a 2.6.31.4 version of
the two patches that cause real problems.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
