Re: a patch drop request in -mm

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:00:51AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > Mel,
> > 
> > Today, my test found following patch makes false-positive warning.
> > because, truncate can free the pages
> > although the pages are mlock()ed.
> > 
> > So, I think following patch should be dropped.
> > .. or, do you think truncate should clear PG_mlock before free the page?
> 
> Is there a reason that truncate cannot clear PG_mlock before freeing the
> page?

CC to Lee.
IIRC, Lee tried it at first. but after some trouble, he decided change free_hot_cold_page().
but unfortunately, I don't recall the reason ;-)

Lee, Can you recall it?


> > Can I ask your patch intention?
> 
> Locked pages being freed to the page allocator were considered
> unexpected and a counter was in place to determine how often that
> situation occurred. However, I considered it unlikely that the counter
> would be noticed so the warning was put in place to catch what class of
> pages were getting freed locked inappropriately. I think a few anomolies
> have been cleared up since. Ultimately, it should have been safe to
> delete the check.

OK. it seems reasonable. so, I only hope no see linus tree output false-positive warnings.
Thus, I propse 

  - don't merge this patch to linus tree
  - but, no drop from -mm
    it be holded in mm until this issue fixed.
  - I'll working on fixing this issue.

I think this is enough fair.


Hannes, I'm sorry. I haven't review your patch. I'm too busy now. please gime me more
sevaral time.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/