Re: [stable] [PATCH 0/2] Zone boundary alignment fixes, default configuration

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 01:08:05PM +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Chris Wright wrote:
> > 
> >> * Andy Whitcroft (apw@shadowen.org) wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think a concensus is forming that the checks for merging across
> >>> zones were removed from the buddy allocator without anyone noticing.
> >>> So I propose that the configuration option UNALIGNED_ZONE_BOUNDARIES
> >>> default to on, and those architectures which have been auditied
> >>> for alignment may turn it off.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> So what's the final outcome here for -stable?  The only
> >> relevant patch upstream appears to be Bob Picco's patch
> > 
> > 
> > I think you need zone checks? [ ie. page_zone(page) == page_zone(buddy) ]
> > I had assumed Andy was going to do a patch for that.
> 
> The stack for the full optional check in -mm seems like a lot for a
> stable patch.  I think for stable we should just add the check for
> unconditionally, its very light weight and safe that way.  Am just
> putting together a patch for that now.  Will respond to this email
> shortly with that patch once its been through a few tests.

But one of the -stable rules is that it fixes a real problem that people
are having, not just a theoretical one.  Does this classify as such?

thanks,

greg k-h

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>