On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:49:27 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:37:57PM -0800, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Subject: [merged] mm-page_alloc-reset-aging-cycle-with-gfp_thisnode-v2.patch removed from -mm tree > > To: hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx,jstancek@xxxxxxxxxx,mgorman@xxxxxxx,riel@xxxxxxxxxx,stable@xxxxxxxxxx,mm-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > From: akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:37:57 -0800 > > > > > > The patch titled > > Subject: mm: page_alloc: exempt GFP_THISNODE allocations from zone fairness > > has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was > > mm-page_alloc-reset-aging-cycle-with-gfp_thisnode-v2.patch > > > > This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree > > Would it make sense to also merge > > mm-fix-gfp_thisnode-callers-and-clarify.patch > > at this point? It's not as critical as the GFP_THISNODE exemption, > which is why I didn't tag it for stable, but it's a bugfix as well. Changelog fail! : GFP_THISNODE is for callers that implement their own clever fallback to : remote nodes, and so no direct reclaim is invoked. There are many current : users that only want node exclusiveness but still want reclaim to make the : allocation happen. Convert them over to __GFP_THISNODE and update the : documentation to clarify GFP_THISNODE semantics. what bug does it fix and what are the user-visible effects?? -- 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>