Re: [PATCH v3 13/14] mm, hugetlb: retry if failed to allocate andthere is concurrent user

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:37:49 -0800 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@xxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 19:08 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > 
> > > > If Andrew agree, It would be great to merge 1-7 patches into mainline
> > > > before your mutex approach. There are some of clean-up patches and, IMO,
> > > > it makes the code more readable and maintainable, so it is worth to merge
> > > > separately.
> > > 
> > > Fine by me.
> > > 
> > 
> > It appears like patches 1-7 are still missing from linux-next, would you 
> > mind posting them in a series with your approach?
> 
> I haven't looked much into patches 4-7, but at least the first three are
> ok. I was waiting for Andrew to take all seven for linux-next and then
> I'd rebase my approach on top. Anyway, unless Andrew has any
> preferences, if by later this week they're not picked up, I'll resend
> everything.

Well, we're mainly looking for bugfixes this last in the cycle. 
"[PATCH v3 03/14] mm, hugetlb: protect region tracking via newly
introduced resv_map lock" fixes a bug, but I'd assumed that it depended
on earlier patches.  If we think that one is serious then it would be
better to cook up a minimal fix which is backportable into 3.12 and
eariler?
--
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/