Received: by 2002:ac0:a594:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m20-v6csp2928844imm; Thu, 24 May 2018 19:14:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZps+6hObWlojSbriS8Jn4DipI5Lh1LwSlCpYCxwnLNgcg2vLme0Z4WYdas9dzqUE2pwo3eP X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7e05:: with SMTP id b5-v6mr540410plm.230.1527214491656; Thu, 24 May 2018 19:14:51 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1527214491; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=VDQ97zKF9MQ+Qfe6k/FVIRK2oXE+9o/mmQzkrexKNcHc7dMmzWWq1RVgSccJnno/9+ VARfHDS4ckJL88hKr/MK+XdbdG3SfJxpM/QBNWpRC87pJ0pHZ1w3Jl0TpFGkGXKh34QM 0XHuk06D7LgVbPIMIfdGHHjIWS6tS7g+jB+2eULovmwLRS+A03tz9c92TuNsTfBxbZDA GJiYcWh2rxzszRVoiaALMaYbbHWNMQpZj03Oj5j+DqqhqDLe8K968k32bKdD4XhIGxvO REHCjYg973JosIsiv3tAduptMDLWP8uT/KALJIeKj9XgNG0JfhjN5eNF8Ofxw8sgWdVB 3zoA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=W1W5BEsSwA7txvFZSIC7ysjhs5YMA6X23tD5wE+7AEo=; b=bcMkZ26VuPSkLgxuBhE+XIEuhB4tkqVs2DhbPwuqMSjdN8ZsCIqanv7qUtrfCFUdas bjAG0xBpWArHy3IceaIveTM9lTcvM/P2pc7ZApMAD2n7coJn65ohepS+KguxogdWfB3P JRoimeOdZCa0mWF9zXbJr/Q6fMkxoU5n++u03xcqZeGldH5Tf63uFSRmy63YMkEuGZH2 TcU2YTb98UUAhaitBWNgqDnBtH2elfvEuviOHWRZaSxkyxwwYKjuyDsqu/jabOnQd0+C n4wbDHX7hRZ3ONB8YYZJC1JISFNc28yV06DuC/rjnpWsfrDHEpPtOLBr0ti2OT+Y8z/R l5JQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id t10-v6si3751138pgf.303.2018.05.24.19.14.37; Thu, 24 May 2018 19:14:51 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965775AbeEXOix (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 24 May 2018 10:38:53 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39895 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965438AbeEXOiw (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2018 10:38:52 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext-too.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C5DAD73; Thu, 24 May 2018 14:38:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 14:12:37 +0100 From: Mel Gorman To: Jan Kara Cc: Greg KH , Hugh Dickins , linux-kernel , stable , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 50/92] mm: filemap: avoid unnecessary calls to lock_page when waiting for IO to complete during a read Message-ID: <20180524131237.soy6jm3ji2pe66id@suse.de> References: <20180524093159.286472249@linuxfoundation.org> <20180524093204.290399449@linuxfoundation.org> <20180524105011.jkmjrmoyqtogtgnn@quack2.suse.cz> <20180524110546.GA16171@kroah.com> <20180524112841.GA17626@kroah.com> <20180524120237.25y5dqpuvdufwiam@quack2.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180524120237.25y5dqpuvdufwiam@quack2.suse.cz> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170912 (1.9.0) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > This is in the SLES kernel for a reason, and again, it's in the section > > that says "this should be pushed to stable". So if it's good enough for > > the SLES kernel, why isn't it good enough for all users of this kernel > > tree? > > Heh, fair enough. I guess Mel in the end didn't find patches worthy enough > to be pushed to stable tree. But at least now I know they are well tested > with 4.4 base so they should do no harm in the stable tree so my stance is > closer to neutral. > Early on, I backported a number of performance patches to -stable with the view to having a good baseline to compare a new mainline release with. However, after a while some of them required unrelated backports that would be excessive for -stable. While I could have continued backporting some patches, I stopped as the time required to run all of the performance tests is excessive and I was already tracking too many kernels. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs