Hi Mel, On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:12:29AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > 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 All of these commits have already been included on the stable 3.11 kernel by Greg (in 3.11.8 release). > 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. That would be awesome! I have my current 3.11 stable queue here: git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/linux.git linux-3.11.y-queue This tree contains the patches I'm queuing for the next 3.11 extended stable release, and already include your 3.12-stable backport patches. And thanks a lot ;) Cheers, -- Luis -- 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