From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Cyrus-Session-Id: sloti22d1t05-2485797-1527192110-2-12571343789485614399 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 3.0 X-Spam-known-sender: no X-Spam-score: 0.0 X-Spam-hits: BAYES_00 -1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS 0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI -1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI -5, LANGUAGES en, BAYES_USED global, SA_VERSION 3.4.0 X-Spam-source: IP='209.132.180.67', Host='vger.kernel.org', Country='US', FromHeader='com', MailFrom='org' X-Spam-charsets: plain='UTF-8' X-Resolved-to: greg@kroah.com X-Delivered-to: greg@kroah.com X-Mail-from: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; d=messagingengine.com; s=fm2; t= 1527192109; b=ku8cfWayt7W5kkNtlJi+fQVj6Ig8wY4cd4HIZ49BFh0shfam6E h5uzfBIcIBPkRS4Rssp1BjtSWoeweM4jnOoQUF5kf3+MhdvREYjIQR8jFplDIc8s VVKxu0F+URQcrOFg7hhl95BTEHiy/EpBr6YO3RCh3iNUt920dAsh8vP/3YSdUGXh Fq7RMOeT0CMr0XZMJvN3o9YLYsye+NopVTIMf1wM8tPoWPEMZEJRt6tiyrWKGM6O HvnCniJpo3ac0kCdjJbPoc2/0Wr5/1GlYmBqK7cRWH8P4wO8lTcnXZLmPXE9CsHr Tnlp/KY3vlL+QRfGf2ae5eFlwcddA2ZwvhXQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:sender:list-id; s= fm2; t=1527192109; bh=pBVd/6eOHb8H6ZKg7scum3VoaUKxiXa+VDnjHA8l5h E=; b=lD/m7Yq586+LwvQI8TvEkNA2hYQ014G9S1Oa0DxnZGAWAnkZ3P4R7uY31p NOj/JwyXu0dYNtD3nZNgKhnZE6JZsMMkFrg8J0DD+3Ri6bEG0Q5l3tocGsYx1fsz NurmqHuSoBT+Z+F2A+HgPSBw8FLPc7wof0EKZlBmhfT+7LPEUR2O5bpkA4PVDEqo axu/XWG7TEVEzcw6XPbUFN1X+owq8qCAiVY9zoxQQk2SX8V/POTfYWzTbFS4Bs7N AJx0MsKHmjpCfKh22VWklOegGBF2dtqh/+3EtoFu0yp92bHoxxnN+h7YbCOT2vVa 8+2Xq5TvR5yDXhVkye/ByiyRD+EA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx6.messagingengine.com; arc=none (no signatures found); dkim=pass (2048-bit rsa key sha256) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=lpjQsNMv x-bits=2048 x-keytype=rsa x-algorithm=sha256 x-selector=20161025; dmarc=pass (p=reject,has-list-id=yes,d=none) header.from=google.com; iprev=pass policy.iprev=209.132.180.67 (vger.kernel.org); spf=none smtp.mailfrom=stable-owner@vger.kernel.org smtp.helo=vger.kernel.org; x-aligned-from=fail; x-cm=none score=0; x-google-dkim=pass (2048-bit rsa key) header.d=1e100.net header.i=@1e100.net header.b=Q90z53lj; x-ptr=pass x-ptr-helo=vger.kernel.org x-ptr-lookup=vger.kernel.org; x-return-mx=pass smtp.domain=vger.kernel.org smtp.result=pass smtp_org.domain=kernel.org smtp_org.result=pass smtp_is_org_domain=no header.domain=google.com header.result=pass header_is_org_domain=yes; x-vs=clean score=-100 state=0 Authentication-Results: mx6.messagingengine.com; arc=none (no signatures found); dkim=pass (2048-bit rsa key sha256) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=lpjQsNMv x-bits=2048 x-keytype=rsa x-algorithm=sha256 x-selector=20161025; dmarc=pass (p=reject,has-list-id=yes,d=none) header.from=google.com; iprev=pass policy.iprev=209.132.180.67 (vger.kernel.org); spf=none smtp.mailfrom=stable-owner@vger.kernel.org smtp.helo=vger.kernel.org; x-aligned-from=fail; x-cm=none score=0; x-google-dkim=pass (2048-bit rsa key) header.d=1e100.net header.i=@1e100.net header.b=Q90z53lj; x-ptr=pass x-ptr-helo=vger.kernel.org x-ptr-lookup=vger.kernel.org; x-return-mx=pass smtp.domain=vger.kernel.org smtp.result=pass smtp_org.domain=kernel.org smtp_org.result=pass smtp_is_org_domain=no header.domain=google.com header.result=pass header_is_org_domain=yes; x-vs=clean score=-100 state=0 X-ME-VSCategory: clean X-CM-Envelope: MS4wfGpjUFbsYN9pPybM2wnaDkNHvmbxB6rO7Bw/+4Wl4rqFc61R/ouocygxLi0hcSY4gi27C/FUNOWiL+voPCSS8/5ZjeQokYqF7mQUWWI4MoCeM4nkzC/7 iSrxv0A3Cf+RnmGIX4KGwXDe+k5swd572l1BcRq5BsiT36XujeKDdVIt1L0yS96EvSUmgixczi+BEvo126kB5kYAK6SZ/lzG2/37F0dSisHKvhYcB9DlN6Ep X-CM-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=FKU1Odgs c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=UK1r566ZdBxH71SXbqIOeA==:117 a=UK1r566ZdBxH71SXbqIOeA==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=VUJBJC2UJ8kA:10 a=ag1SF4gXAAAA:8 a=TTgf3g41wVxbUq42LhoA:9 a=Vn7uph7HnJobbn7Y:21 a=D5t7-nLncKt_RRbz:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Yupwre4RP9_Eg_Bd0iYG:22 X-ME-CMScore: 0 X-ME-CMCategory: none Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751711AbeEXUBr (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2018 16:01:47 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f195.google.com ([209.85.223.195]:34452 "EHLO mail-io0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750961AbeEXUBq (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2018 16:01:46 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLU7uQ8ubqFrlu/qGDaOWkKwM7Rm+eTtKgkRrC/DUbAkiQN/YktVmVfu3kDSThkbUoEzJ5MLpgu5lTvnapbS68= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180524093159.286472249@linuxfoundation.org> <20180524093204.290399449@linuxfoundation.org> <20180524105011.jkmjrmoyqtogtgnn@quack2.suse.cz> <20180524110546.GA16171@kroah.com> <20180524112841.GA17626@kroah.com> <20180524190611.GD31019@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20180524190611.GD31019@kroah.com> From: Hugh Dickins Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 13:01:18 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 50/92] mm: filemap: avoid unnecessary calls to lock_page when waiting for IO to complete during a read To: Greg KH Cc: Jan Kara , linux-kernel , stable , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Mel Gorman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: INBOX X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:06 PM Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:27:59AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:28 AM Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 04:17:12AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:06 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:50:11PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > > > On Thu 24-05-18 11:38:27, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > > 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please > > let me > > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > > > Just one objection: Why does stable care about this (and the > > previous > > > > > > patch)? I've checked the stable queue and I don't see anything that > > > > would > > > > > > have these patches as a prerequisite. And on their own, they are > > only > > > > > > cleanups without substantial gains. > > > > > > > > > There's a small gain here: > > > > > > > > > > > paralleldd > > > > > > > 4.4.0 4.4.0 > > > > > > > vanilla avoidlock > > > > > > > Amean Elapsd-1 5.28 ( 0.00%) 5.15 ( 2.50%) > > > > > > > Amean Elapsd-4 5.29 ( 0.00%) 5.17 ( 2.12%) > > > > > > > Amean Elapsd-7 5.28 ( 0.00%) 5.18 ( 1.78%) > > > > > > > Amean Elapsd-12 5.20 ( 0.00%) 5.33 ( -2.50%) > > > > > > > Amean Elapsd-21 5.14 ( 0.00%) 5.21 ( -1.41%) > > > > > > > Amean Elapsd-30 5.30 ( 0.00%) 5.12 ( 3.38%) > > > > > > > Amean Elapsd-48 5.78 ( 0.00%) 5.42 ( 6.21%) > > > > > > > Amean Elapsd-79 6.78 ( 0.00%) 6.62 ( 2.46%) > > > > > > > Amean Elapsd-110 9.09 ( 0.00%) 8.99 ( 1.15%) > > > > > > > Amean Elapsd-128 10.60 ( 0.00%) 10.43 ( 1.66%) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The impact is small but intuitively, it makes sense to avoid > > > > unnecessary > > > > > > > calls to lock_page. > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's small, but it's marked in the SLES kernel as "needs to be > > > > > merged into stable", so obviously it matters to someone :) > > > > > > > > Hmm. I had the same reaction to these two as Jan, but assumed that they > > > > made applying later patches easier, and didn't take the trouble he did > > to > > > > find that's not so. > > > > > > > > I've no wish to be disputatious, but it does seem that the definition of > > > > "stable" has changed, and not necessarily for the better, if it's now a > > > > home for small gains: I thought we left those to upstream. > > > > > 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? > > > > > If you all think it should be dropped in both places, that's fine with > > > me :) > > > > I think they are perfectly fine in SLES: folding in good work is a part of > > what distros are about. > And it's also what stable is for. We have had backports of performance > improvements in the past, along with lots of other things over the > years. This is a performance improvement. A tiny one, yes, but getting > rid of a lock is a good thing, and I picked it up as part of my review > of what a distro decided was worth adding for their users, as that's a > huge signal that might be of value to others. > > But I cannot find anything in stable-kernel-rules.rst that would admit them > > - perhaps that's just out of date? > Nope, that's the list I use to say "no" to. You can't describe > everything in that file, it's a judgement call. > > If -stable is to be a compendium of "this looks nice, you might like to > > include it", so be it: but the rules should then be updated. > This is a "a bunch of people I trust took it in their kernel, and it's > been running on zillion of machines for a while and causes no harm and a > slight benefit, so let's add it!" type of thing. It's not the only > patch in this series that was like that, but for some reason this one is > the one the triggered the debate, which is funny to me as this does have > numbers in it showing that it is an improvement :) Thank you for looking after the -stable trees: please let me not waste your time any further. I have no specific objection to the two patches, which are certainly not egregious offenders. But I do still find the disconnect between stable-kernel-rules.rst and reality confusing - or perhaps I just find reality confusing :) Hugh