On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:13:49AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > This old chestnut. IIRC, this was the more complete solution to a fix that made > it into mainline. The patch still looks reasonable. It does add a kmalloc() > but I can't remember if we decided we were ok with it or not. Can you remind We decided the kmalloc was ok, but Linus didn't like this approach. I kept it in my tree because I didn't want to remember when/if to add the special check in the accurate rmap walks. I find it simpler if all rmap walks are accurate by default. > me? More importantly, it appears to be surviving the original testcase that > this bug was about (20 minutes so far but will leave it a few hours). Assuming > the test does not crash; Sure the patch is safe. If Linus still doesn't like this, I will immediately remove this patch and add the special checks to the rmap walks in huge_memory.c, you know my preference but this is a detail and my preference is irrelevant. Thanks, Andrea -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>