On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 11:23:52 +0900 Joonsoo Kim js1304@gmail.com 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)