On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:19:34 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7/23/19 7:35 AM, Yang Shi wrote: > > > > > > On 7/22/19 6:02 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:25:09 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>>> since there may be pages off LRU temporarily. We should migrate other > >>>> pages if MPOL_MF_MOVE* is specified. Set has_unmovable flag if some > >>>> paged could not be not moved, then return -EIO for mbind() eventually. > >>>> > >>>> With this change the above test would return -EIO as expected. > >>>> > >>>> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> > >>>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > >>>> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> I'm a bit surprised that this doesn't have a cc:stable. Did we > >> consider that? > > > > The VM_BUG just happens on 4.9, and it is enabled only by CONFIG_VM. For > > post-4.9 kernel, this fixes the semantics of mbind which should be not a > > regression IMHO. > > 4.9 is a LTS kernel, so perhaps worth trying? > OK, I'll add cc:stable to mm-mempolicy-make-the-behavior-consistent-when-mpol_mf_move-and-mpol_mf_strict-were-specified.patch and mm-mempolicy-handle-vma-with-unmovable-pages-mapped-correctly-in-mbind.patch Do we have a Fixes: for these patches?
