2020년 7월 24일 (금) 오전 11:36, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>님이 작성:
>
> 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)
Thanks for the pointer!
Hmm... I'm not sure the correct way to handle this patch. I thought that
memalloc_nocma_{save,restore} is an API that is callable from the module.
If it is true, it's better to regard this patch as the stable candidate since
out-of-tree modules could use it without the fallback and it would cause
a problem. But, yes, there is no visible problem to the end-user, at least,
within the mainline so it is possibly not a stable candidate.
Please share your opinion about this situation.
Thanks.
