Re: [PATCH v2] mm/page_alloc: fix memalloc_nocma_{save/restore} APIs

[Joonsoo Kim]

2020ë 7ì 24ì (ê) ìí 12:14, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>ëì ìì:
>
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:04:02 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <js1304@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > 2020ë 7ì 24ì (ê) ìì 11:36, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>ëì ìì:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> We tend not to care much about out-of-tree modules.  I don't think a
> theoretical concern for out-of-tree code justifies risking the
> stability of -stable kernels.

Okay. It's appreciated if you remove the stable tag. Or, I will send it again
without the stable tag.

Thanks.