On Wed 24-08-16 14:14:18, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:08:59 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > I guess the reason this patch has been dropped is due to > > mm-oom-prevent-pre-mature-oom-killer-invocation-for-high-order-request.patch. > > Yes. And I think we're still waiting testing feedback from the > reporters on > mm-oom-prevent-pre-mature-oom-killer-invocation-for-high-order-request.patch? yes > > I guess we will wait for the above patch to get to Linus, revert it in mmotm > > and re-apply > > mm-compaction-more-reliably-increase-direct-compaction-priority.patch > > again, right? > > I suppose so. We can leave > mm-oom-prevent-pre-mature-oom-killer-invocation-for-high-order-request.patch > in place in mainline for 4.8 so it can be respectably backported into > -stable. > > And we may as well fold > mm-compaction-more-reliably-increase-direct-compaction-priority.patch > into the patch which re-adds should_compact_retry()? I am not sure combining those two into a single patch would be better. It is true it would be bisect safe but those patches are not really related because there are other changes for the compaction improvements which already made a difference. This one is merely yet-another-change on top. Let me think about that, though. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>