On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 11:23:52 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <js1304@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Second, clearing __GFP_MOVABLE in current_gfp_context() has a side effect > > > to exclude the memory on the ZONE_MOVABLE for allocation target. > > > > More whoops. > > > > Could we please have a description of the end-user-visible effects of > > this change? Very much needed when proposing a -stable backport, I think. > > In fact, there is no noticeable end-user-visible effect since the fallback would > cover the problematic case. It's mentioned in the commit description. Perhap, > performance would be improved due to reduced retry and more available memory > (we can use ZONE_MOVABLE with this patch) but it would be neglectable. > > > d7fefcc8de9147c is over a year old. Why did we only just discover > > this? This makes one wonder how serious those end-user-visible effects > > are? > > As mentioned above, there is no visible problem to the end-user. OK, thanks. In that case, I don't believe that a stable backport is appropriate? (Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst)
