Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm, vmscan: Do not wait for page writeback for GFP_NOFS" failed to apply to 4.1-stable tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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3.10 comment is now out of date: I'll reply in a moment to the 3.10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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]