From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail6.bemta12.messagelabs.com (mail6.bemta12.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.247]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5FCE6B002C for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:56:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ggdk5 with SMTP id k5so6697278ggd.14 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:56:42 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCHv16 0/9] Contiguous Memory Allocator Message-Id: <20111010155642.38df59af.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <201110071827.06366.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1317909290-29832-1-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <201110071827.06366.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Marek Szyprowski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, Michal Nazarewicz , Kyungmin Park , Russell King , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Ankita Garg , Daniel Walker , Mel Gorman , Jesse Barker , Jonathan Corbet , Shariq Hasnain , Chunsang Jeong , Dave Hansen On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 18:27:06 +0200 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 06 October 2011, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > Once again I decided to post an updated version of the Contiguous Memory > > Allocator patches. > > > > This version provides mainly a bugfix for a very rare issue that might > > have changed migration type of the CMA page blocks resulting in dropping > > CMA features from the affected page block and causing memory allocation > > to fail. Also the issue reported by Dave Hansen has been fixed. > > > > This version also introduces basic support for x86 architecture, what > > allows wide testing on KVM/QEMU emulators and all common x86 boxes. I > > hope this will result in wider testing, comments and easier merging to > > mainline. > > Hi Marek, > > I think we need to finally get this into linux-next now, to get some > broader testing. Having the x86 patch definitely helps here becauses > it potentially exposes the code to many more testers. > > IMHO it would be good to merge the entire series into 3.2, since > the ARM portion fixes an important bug (double mapping of memory > ranges with conflicting attributes) that we've lived with for far > too long, but it really depends on how everyone sees the risk > for regressions here. If something breaks in unfixable ways before > the 3.2 release, we can always revert the patches and have another > try later. > > It's also not clear how we should merge it. Ideally the first bunch > would go through linux-mm, and the architecture specific patches > through the respective architecture trees, but there is an obvious > inderdependency between these sets. > > Russell, Andrew, are you both comfortable with putting the entire > set into linux-mm to solve this? Do you see this as 3.2 or rather > as 3.3 material? > Russell's going to hate me, but... I do know that he had substantial objections to at least earlier versions of this, and he is a guy who knows of what he speaks. So I would want to get a nod from rmk on this work before proceeding. If that nod isn't available then let's please identify the issues and see what we can do about them. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org