On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 05:56:55PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> It has been suggested that this series be included before Oscar Salvador's
> series "Make alloc_contig_range handle Hugetlb pages". At a logical
> level, here is what I think needs to happen. However, I am not sure how
> you do tree management and I am open to anything you suggest. Please do
> not start until we get an Ack from Oscar as he will need to participate.
As I said, this is fine by me.
I think it is the most straightforward way to proceed with this series
as this is a problem that has been bugging us fore quite some time now.
See below:
> Remove patches for the series "Make alloc_contig_range handle Hugetlb pages"
> from Oscar Salvador.
> - mm,page_alloc: drop unnecessary checks from pfn_range_valid_contig
> - mm: make alloc_contig_range handle in-use hugetlb pages
> - mm: make alloc_contig_range handle free hugetlb pages
Yes, those need to be removed
> /*
> * Technically, the following patches do not need to be removed as
> * they do not interact with Mike's changes. Again, they do
> * contain 'cover letter comments' in the commit messages which may
> * not make sense out of context.
> */
> - mmcompaction-let-isolate_migratepages_rangeblock-return-error-codes-fix
> - mm,compaction: let isolate_migratepages_{range,block} return error codes
Those could stay as well, but they mention a change in
alloc_contig_range() and without the context of the whole patchset might
be misleading, so I would pull those out as well.
> - mm,page_alloc: bail out earlier on -ENOMEM in alloc_contig_migrate_range
I think this one can stay.
But if It is going to be easier for Andrew, just pull them all out and I
will resend the whole series once this work goes in.
Thanks!
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3
