From: vbabka@suse.cz (Vlastimil Babka) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:26:43 +0100 Subject: Suspicious error for CMA stress test In-Reply-To: <20160323044407.GB4624@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> References: <56E2FB5C.1040602@suse.cz> <20160314064925.GA27587@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> <56E662E8.700@suse.cz> <20160314071803.GA28094@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> <56E92AFC.9050208@huawei.com> <20160317065426.GA10315@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> <56EA77BC.2090702@huawei.com> <56EAD0B4.2060807@suse.cz> <56EC0C41.70503@suse.cz> <20160323044407.GB4624@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> Message-ID: <56F25343.8010100@suse.cz> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/23/2016 05:44 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> >> Fixes: 3c605096d315 ("mm/page_alloc: restrict max order of merging on isolated pageblock") >> Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/2/280 >> Reported-by: Hanjun Guo >> Debugged-by: Laura Abbott >> Debugged-by: Joonsoo Kim >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka >> Cc: # 3.18+ >> --- >> mm/page_alloc.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- >> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > Acked-by: Joonsoo Kim > > Thanks for taking care of this issue!. Thanks for the review. But I'm now not sure whether we push this to mainline+stable now, and later replace with Lucas' approach, or whether that approach would be also suitable and non-disruptive enough for stable?