Re: Backport request to stable of two performance related fixes for xen-blkfront (3.13 fixes to earlier trees)

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 06:56:57AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 12:47:07PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > On 06/04/2014 07:48 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 03:11:22PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > >> Hey Greg
> > >>
> > >> This email is in regards to backporting two patches to stable that
> > >> fall under the 'performance' rule:
> > >>
> > >>  bfe11d6de1c416cea4f3f0f35f864162063ce3fa
> > >>  fbe363c476afe8ec992d3baf682670a4bd1b6ce6
> > > 
> > > Now queued up, thanks.
> > 
> > AFAIU, they introduce a performance regression.
> 
> That "regression" is also in mainline, right?  As Konrad doesn't seem to
> think it matters, I'm deferring to the maintainer here.

Hehe.

Greg is correct - the performance regression with tmpfs/ramfs does exist
upstream and once a fix has been established will be dealt with. Right now we
are fousing on the 99% usage models which is solid state, rotational,
and flash (just got one of those) and the two patches outlined above are
needed for the stable trees.

Thank you.

Hopefully I haven't confused the issue here.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h