DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding
         :in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=l+sX7l7y0jn8DULhdsiSppqV05OtoOIF7ru/OXRXhgrjOjUa/qx3RvfV+lt60TzQ05
         VPxftJXYJ12V2UHll1gDuG/AFibjQYSMC+ogNoXl/QZeVjNKlAydlXY60j4JiYSPspBy
         Zg0RGMkbQ9D1Pl625vkkd0q8DbOCw567zxLqE=
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:03:37 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.39-rc3
Message-ID: <20110414040337.GC12781@mtj.dyndns.org>
References: <20110413172147.GI19819@8bytes.org>
 <4DA5F62F.3030504@kernel.org>
 <20110413193459.GL19819@8bytes.org>
 <4DA60C30.4060606@kernel.org>
 <BANLkTik7W0u92n_s0t32dsoLULu4QTZneA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4DA6145D.9070703@kernel.org>
 <BANLkTinud+4nUkZtnYRrU_gAFaMDWRa_AA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4DA655E7.3000904@zytor.com>
 <BANLkTimqR_M5keMqr5WAuz-t+1BkCZbwCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTincU4rM+SqhzGOK_Rgxgg8fqJOOdQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTincU4rM+SqhzGOK_Rgxgg8fqJOOdQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1328
Lines: 33

Hello,

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 07:33:40PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2011, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2011, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes. ?However, even if we *do* revert (and the time is running short on
> >> not reverting) I would like to understand this particular one, simply
> >> because I think it may very well be a problem that is manifesting itself
> >> in other ways on other systems.
> 
>  sorry, fingerfart. Anyway, I agree 100%.
> 
>  we definitely want to also understand the reason for things not
> working, even if we do revert..

There were (and still are) places where memblock callers implemented
ad-hoc top-down allocation by stepping down start limit until
allocation succeeds.  Several of them have been removed since top-down
became the default behavior, so simply reverting the commit is likely
to cause subtle issues.  Maybe the best approach is introducing
@topdown parameter and use it selectively for pure memory allocations.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/