Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm, hugetlb: allocation API and migration improvements

2018-01-03 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 03-01-18 16:05:23, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 10:32:07 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I've posted this as an RFC [1] and both Mike and Naoya seem to be OK > > both with patches and the approach. I have rebased this on top of [2] > > because there is a small conflict in mm/

Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm, hugetlb: allocation API and migration improvements

2018-01-03 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 10:32:07 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote: > I've posted this as an RFC [1] and both Mike and Naoya seem to be OK > both with patches and the approach. I have rebased this on top of [2] > because there is a small conflict in mm/mempolicy.c. I know it is late > in the release cycle but

[PATCH 0/6] mm, hugetlb: allocation API and migration improvements

2018-01-03 Thread Michal Hocko
Hi, I've posted this as an RFC [1] and both Mike and Naoya seem to be OK both with patches and the approach. I have rebased this on top of [2] because there is a small conflict in mm/mempolicy.c. I know it is late in the release cycle but similarly to [2] I would really like to see this in linux-ne