On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 05:50:29PM +0000, Luis Henriques wrote: > Hi Mel, > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 02:00:35PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > > A number of NUMA balancing patches were tagged for -stable but I got a > > number of rejected mails from either Greg or his robot minion. The list > > of relevant patches is > > > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: serialise parallel get_user_page against THP" > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: call MMU notifiers on THP migration" > > MERGED: Patch "mm: clear pmd_numa before invalidating" > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: do not clear PMD during PTE update scan" > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: do not clear PTE for pte_numa update" > > MERGED: Patch "mm: numa: ensure anon_vma is locked to prevent parallel THP splits" > > MERGED: Patch "mm: numa: avoid unnecessary work on the failure path" > > MERGED: Patch "sched: numa: skip inaccessible VMAs" > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: clear numa hinting information on mprotect" > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: avoid unnecessary disruption of NUMA hinting during" > > Patch "mm: fix TLB flush race between migration, and change_protection_range" > > Patch "mm: numa: guarantee that tlb_flush_pending updates are visible before page table updates" > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: defer TLB flush for THP migration as long as" > > > > Fixing the rejects one at a time may cause other conflicts due to ordering > > issues. Instead, this patch series against 3.12.6 is the full list of > > backported patches in the expected order. Greg, unfortunately this means > > you may have to drop some patches already in your stable tree and reapply > > but on the plus side they should be then in the correct order for bisection > > purposes and you'll know I've tested this combination of patches. > > > > Thanks. > > I was going throught these commits for the 3.11 kernel and it looks like > all your backports apply cleanly. Could you please help me and confirm if > all of these are applicable to this older kernel as well? > They should apply cleanly and there should be no problems. However, there are a number of other NUMA balancing related patches between 3.11 and 3.12. These ones on particular would be desirable (no others spring to mind) 0255d491848032f6c601b6410c3b8ebded3a37b1 mm: Account for a THP NUMA hinting update as one PTE update 3f926ab945b60a5824369d21add7710622a2eac0 mm: Close races between THP migration and PMD numa clearing c61109e34f60f6e85bb43c5a1cd51c0e3db40847 mm: numa: Sanitize task_numa_fault() callsites 587fe586f44a48f9691001ba6c45b86c8e4ba21f mm: Prevent parallel splits during THP migration 42836f5f8baa33085f547098b74aa98991ee9216 mm: Wait for THP migrations to complete during NUMA hinting faults 1dd49bfa3465756b3ce72214b58a33e4afb67aa3 mm: numa: Do not account for a hinting fault if we raced So if I was taking the 3.12-stable backport patches into 3.11-stable then I would also bring these to avoid unique surprises. Bear in mind that I have not tested this combination of patches against 3.11 though. If these apply cleany and you want a test then punt a monolithic patch or a git tree at me and I'll queue it up. Thanks. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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