On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 09:00:37AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 13-08-15 19:35:03, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 04:24:10PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > On Thu, 13 Aug 2015, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The patch below does not apply to the 4.1-stable tree. > > > > > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm > > > > > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit > > > > > id to <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > > ------------ commit in Linus's tree adjusted to 4.1.5 ------------- > > > > > > Thanks for this. Should it also be backported to older kernels as well? > > > > Yes 3.9+ would be appreciated as per Hugh's testing > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LSU.2.11.1508032227050.5070%40eggly.anvils > > " > > And more testing on the history of it, considering your stable 3.6+ > > designation that I wasn't satisfied with. Getting out that USB stick > > again, I find that 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 all OOM if their __GFP_IO test > > is updated to a may_enter_fs test; but something happened in 3.9 > > to make it and subsequent releases safe with the may_enter_fs test. > > You can certainly argue that the remote chance of a deadlock is > > worse than the fair chance of a spurious OOM; but if you insist > > on 3.6+, then I think it would have to go back even further, > > because we marked that commit for stable itself. I suggest 3.9+. > > " > > Ok, I've applied this to 3.10 and 3.14-stable trees. For 3.10, it had > to be done by hand, so if you could verify I got it right, that would be > appreciated (the whole comment block change didn't apply, but the if() > change did.) Thanks for doing these, Greg: yes, the code itself is fine, but the 3.10 comment is now out of date: I'll reply in a moment to the 3.10 one with a version of the patch that fixes the comment too. (Not that anyone actually reads these comments: if they did, they would find that there's a stray "not" in the Case 3 description ever since 3.11. But I noticed that too late to fix it up.) Hugh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html