Linux 2.6.39-rc3

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 07:33:40PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2011, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2011, H. Peter Anvin <hpa at 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