On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, Greg KH wrote: > > > > None that I am currently aware of, I'll continue to try them out. I'd > > > > suggest just dropping the stable@xxxxxxxxxx from the whole series though > > > > unless there is another report of such a problem that people are running > > > > into. > > > > > > The series has long been merged, how do we drop stable@xxxxxxxxxx from > > > it? > > > > > > > You said you have informed stable to not merge these patches until further > > notice, I'd suggest simply avoid ever merging the whole series into a > > stable kernel since the problem isn't serious enough. Marking changes > > that do "goto nomem" seem fine to mark for stable, though. > > I'm lost. These patches are in 3.12, so how can they not be "in > stable"? > > What exactly do you want me to do here? > Sorry, I sympathize with your confusion since the handling of this patch series has been strange and confusing from the beginning. I'm referring to the comment in this thread from Johannes: "[t]his patch series was not supposed to go into the last merge window, I already told stable to hold off on these until further notice" from http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=138559524422298 and his intention to send the entire series to stable in http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=138539243412073. >From that, I had thought you were already aware of this series and were waiting to merge it into previous stable kernels; I'm suggesting that stable doesn't touch this series with a ten-foot pole and only backport the fixes that have gone into 3.12. That series is: 759496ba640c ("arch: mm: pass userspace fault flag to generic fault handler") 3a13c4d761b4 ("x86: finish user fault error path with fatal signal") 519e52473ebe ("mm: memcg: enable memcg OOM killer only for user faults") fb2a6fc56be6 ("mm: memcg: rework and document OOM waiting and wakeup") 3812c8c8f395 ("mm: memcg: do not trap chargers with full callstack on OOM") And then there's the mystery of 4942642080ea ("mm: memcg: handle non-error OOM situations more gracefully"). This patch went into 3.12-rc6 and is marked for stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Its changelog indicates it fixes the last patch in the above series, but that patch isn't marked for stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. And then you have 84235de394d9 ("fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the allocator") which is marked for stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, but 3168ecbe1c04 ("mm: memcg: use proper memcg in limit bypass") which fixes the memory corruption in that commit isn't marked for stable. I disagreed with the entire series being marked for stable in http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137107020216528 since it violates the rules in Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt when it was originally proposed for stable. The memcg oom waitqueue that this series avoids has been in memcg for 3 1/2 years since 2.6.34 and to date one user, cc'd, has reported any issues with it. And then Johannes commented that he is asking stable to hold off on the series until further notice. I'm suggesting the series not be merged into stable at all, and that's what's in the email you're responding to. Further, since this is confusing enough as it is, I suggest if you do take 84235de394d9 ("fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the allocator") that you certainly must also consider 3168ecbe1c04 ("mm: memcg: use proper memcg in limit bypass"). The former was backported to 3.5 and they required an emergency release of 3.5.7.25 to take it back out. There's also another patch that Johannes will shortly be sending to fix the leakage to the root memcg in oom conditions that can trivially cause large amounts of memory to be charged to the root memcg when it should have been isolated to the oom memcg. -- 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>