On 19.06.20 11:21, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 18-06-20 22:28:22, Sasha Levin wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 06:26:49PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 05:55:43PM +0200, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> >>>> The patch below does not apply to the 5.7-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>. >>> >>> Oops, I applied things out of order, I've queued this and the 5.4 >>> version up, but 4.19 doesn't apply as the dependant patch does not >>> apply. >> >> Something like this should work? > > Nope. Unless I am misreading the old code you are udner > pgdat_resize_lock. Or is there any other change queued before this > backport to remove the lock? (I didn't get to check more closely but it > would be 3d060856adfc5 IIRC). I recently did a similar backport. For pre-5.2, the following commits might be required to backport cleanly 56ec43d8b027 mm: drop meminit_pfn_in_nid as it is redundant 837566e7e08e mm: implement new zone specific memblock iterator 0e56acae4b4d mm: initialize MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES at a time instead of doing larger sections b9705d8778e7 mm/page_alloc.c: fix regression with deferred struct page init 117003c32771 mm/pagealloc.c: call touch_nmi_watchdog() on max order boundaries in deferred init 3d060856adfc mm: initialize deferred pages with interrupts enabled da97f2d56bbd mm: call cond_resched() from deferred_init_memmap() did not verify, though, if anything else is missing (and which commits can be bypassed with less trouble). -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
