From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Memory usage with qemu-kvm-0.12.1.1
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:21:19 -0500
Message-ID: <4B37978F.5030009@redhat.com>
References: <20091227155107.GK7104@defiant.freesoftware> <4B378546.6070104@redhat.com> <4B378C25.4070206@redhat.com> <4B378D6D.40505@redhat.com> <4B378F32.1050307@redhat.com> <4B379562.8060007@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dbareiro@gmx.net, KVM General <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk" <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52088 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751380AbZL0RV1 (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:21:27 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4B379562.8060007@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 12/27/2009 12:12 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/27/2009 06:45 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>>> If so, it doesn't copy stable@kernel.org. Is it queued for -stable?
>>
>> I do not believe that it is queued for -stable.
>>
>> Do performance fixes fit with -stable policy?
>
> If it is a serious regression, I believe it fits.

It's probably been there since 2.6.28, though it might have been
introduced later with a cleanup patch.  It seems to go back at
least as far as March...

-- 
All rights reversed.