On 12/4/18 9:10 AM, David Laight wrote: > From: john.hubbard@xxxxxxxxx >> Sent: 04 December 2018 00:17 >> >> Summary: I'd like these two patches to go into the next convenient cycle. >> I *think* that means 4.21. >> >> Details >> >> At the Linux Plumbers Conference, we talked about this approach [1], and >> the primary lingering concern was over performance. Tom Talpey helped me >> through a much more accurate run of the fio performance test, and now >> it's looking like an under 1% performance cost, to add and remove pages >> from the LRU (this is only paid when dealing with get_user_pages) [2]. So >> we should be fine to start converting call sites. >> >> This patchset gets the conversion started. Both patches already had a fair >> amount of review. > > Shouldn't the commit message contain actual details of the change? > Hi David, This "patch 0000" is not a commit message, as it never shows up in git log. Each of the follow-up patches does have details about the changes it makes. But maybe you are really asking for more background information, which I should have added in this cover letter. Here's a start: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20181110085041.10071-1-jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx ...and it looks like this small patch series is not going to work out--I'm going to have to fall back to another RFC spin. So I'll be sure to include you and everyone on that. Hope that helps. thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA
