From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qe0-f50.google.com (mail-qe0-f50.google.com [209.85.128.50]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFCD56B0031 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:37:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qe0-f50.google.com with SMTP id 1so599597qec.37 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:37:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from g5t0006.atlanta.hp.com (g5t0006.atlanta.hp.com. [15.192.0.43]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ko6si3638024qeb.9.2014.01.14.20.37.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:37:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1389760669.4971.31.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/14] mm, hugetlb: retry if failed to allocate and there is concurrent user From: Davidlohr Bueso Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:37:49 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <1387349640-8071-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <1387349640-8071-14-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <20131219170202.0df2d82a2adefa3ab616bdaa@linux-foundation.org> <20131220140153.GC11295@suse.de> <1387608497.3119.17.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20131223004438.GA19388@lge.com> <20131223021118.GA2487@lge.com> <1388778945.2956.20.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20140106001938.GB696@lge.com> <1389010745.14953.5.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20140107015701.GB26726@lge.com> <1389062214.9937.0.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Joonsoo Kim , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Michal Hocko , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Hugh Dickins , Davidlohr Bueso , David Gibson , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wanpeng Li , Naoya Horiguchi , Hillf Danton , aswin@hp.com 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. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org