From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f200.google.com (mail-pf0-f200.google.com [209.85.192.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7736B0003 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 14:28:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f200.google.com with SMTP id d13so854107pfn.21 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:28:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cys01nam02on0136.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [104.47.37.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h3si12042977pgf.257.2018.04.17.11.28.28 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:28:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.14 015/161] printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:28:27 +0000 Message-ID: <20180417182825.GA2341@sasha-vm> References: <20180416161911.GA2341@sasha-vm> <20180416123019.4d235374@gandalf.local.home> <20180416163754.GD2341@sasha-vm> <20180416170604.GC11034@amd> <20180416172327.GK2341@sasha-vm> <20180417114144.ov27khlig5thqvyo@quack2.suse.cz> <20180417133149.GR2341@sasha-vm> <20180417155549.6lxmoiwnlwtwdgld@quack2.suse.cz> <20180417161933.GY2341@sasha-vm> <20180417175754.w4slhmwtf46hq3hm@quack2.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20180417175754.w4slhmwtf46hq3hm@quack2.suse.cz> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Jan Kara Cc: Pavel Machek , Steven Rostedt , Linus Torvalds , Petr Mladek , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Cong Wang , Dave Hansen , Johannes Weiner , Mel Gorman , Michal Hocko , Vlastimil Babka , Peter Zijlstra , Mathieu Desnoyers , Tetsuo Handa , Byungchul Park , Tejun Heo On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 07:57:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: >Actually I was careful enough to include only commits that got merged as >part of the stable process into 4.14.x but got later reverted in 4.14.y. >That's where the 0.4% number came from. So I believe all of those cases >(13 in absolute numbers) were user visible regressions during the stable >process. I looked at them, and there are 2 things in play here: - Quite a few of those reverts are because of the PTI work. I'm not sure how we treat it, but yes - it skews statistics here. - 2 of them were reverts for device tree changes for a device that didn't exist in 4.14, and shouldn't have had any user visible changes.=