On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 02:35:21PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Andrew, this patch was a performance fix but is a report saying that it > > > fixes a functional regression in Fedora enough to push a patch torwards > > > stable even though an explanation as to *why* it fixes the problem is missing? > > We had to pull aa454840 "mm: page allocator: calculate a better estimate > > of NR_FREE_PAGES when memory is low and kswapd is awake" from 2.6.36 > > internally because tests showed that it would cause the machine to stall > > as the result of heavy kswapd activity. I merged it back with this fix as > > it is pending in the -mm tree and it solves the issue we were seeing, so I > > definitely think this should be pushed to -stable (and I would seriously > > consider it for 2.6.37 inclusion even at this late date). > > How's about I send > mm-page-allocator-adjust-the-per-cpu-counter-threshold-when-memory-is-low.patch > in for 2.6.38 and tag it for backporting into 2.6.37.1 and 2.6.36.x? > That way it'll get a bit of 2.6.38-rc testing before being merged into > 2.6.37.x. > That sounds fine to me. (Thanks very much for the update, David!) I don't mind carrying a few extra patches here and there in Fedora to get them some exposure if they're low risk... I've been carrying Mel's patches for a month or so now and it hasn't turned up any obvious problems in testing. regards, Kyle -- 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>