Jiri Slaby <jsl...@suse.cz> writes: > 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. > > Vitaly?
I'm aware of a performance regression in a 'very special' case when ramdisks or files on tmpfs are being used as storage, I post my results a while ago: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/22/164 I'm not sure if that 'special' case requires investigation and/or should prevent us from doing stable backport but it would be nice if someone tries to reproduce it at least. I'm going to make a bunch of tests with FusionIO drives and sequential read to replicate same test Felipe did, I'll report as soon as I have data (beginning of next week hopefuly). -- Vitaly -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
