From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsnotify: fix unlink performance regression
Date: Sun, 05 May 2019 14:05:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190505130528.GA23075@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190505091549.1934-1-amir73il@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1212 bytes --]
On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 12:15:49PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> __fsnotify_parent() has an optimization in place to avoid unneeded
> take_dentry_name_snapshot(). When fsnotify_nameremove() was changed
> not to call __fsnotify_parent(), we left out the optimization.
> Kernel test robot reported a 5% performance regression in concurrent
> unlink() workload.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190505062153.GG29809(a)shao2-debian/
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20190104090357.GD22409(a)quack2.suse.cz/
> Fixes: 5f02a8776384 ("fsnotify: annotate directory entry modification events")
> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> Jan,
>
> The linked 5.1-rc1 performance regression report came with bad timing.
> Not sure if Linus is planning an rc8. If not, you will probably not
> see this before the 5.1 release and we shall have to queue it for 5.2
> and backport to stable 5.1.
>
> I crafted the patch so it applies cleanly both to master and Al's
> for-next branch (there are some fsnotify changes in work.dcache).
Charming... What about rename() and matching regressions there?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LKP <lkp@01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsnotify: fix unlink performance regression
Date: Sun, 5 May 2019 14:05:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190505130528.GA23075@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190505091549.1934-1-amir73il@gmail.com>
On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 12:15:49PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> __fsnotify_parent() has an optimization in place to avoid unneeded
> take_dentry_name_snapshot(). When fsnotify_nameremove() was changed
> not to call __fsnotify_parent(), we left out the optimization.
> Kernel test robot reported a 5% performance regression in concurrent
> unlink() workload.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190505062153.GG29809@shao2-debian/
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20190104090357.GD22409@quack2.suse.cz/
> Fixes: 5f02a8776384 ("fsnotify: annotate directory entry modification events")
> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> Jan,
>
> The linked 5.1-rc1 performance regression report came with bad timing.
> Not sure if Linus is planning an rc8. If not, you will probably not
> see this before the 5.1 release and we shall have to queue it for 5.2
> and backport to stable 5.1.
>
> I crafted the patch so it applies cleanly both to master and Al's
> for-next branch (there are some fsnotify changes in work.dcache).
Charming... What about rename() and matching regressions there?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-05 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-05 9:15 [PATCH] fsnotify: fix unlink performance regression Amir Goldstein
2019-05-05 13:05 ` Al Viro [this message]
2019-05-05 13:05 ` Al Viro
2019-05-05 13:19 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-05-05 13:47 ` Al Viro
2019-05-05 13:47 ` Al Viro
2019-05-05 14:18 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-05-06 12:43 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-05-06 14:26 ` Al Viro
2019-05-06 14:26 ` Al Viro
2019-05-06 16:22 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-05-05 16:33 ` kbuild test robot
2019-05-05 16:33 ` kbuild test robot
2019-05-05 18:26 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-05-05 20:07 ` [PATCH v2] " Amir Goldstein
2019-05-07 16:19 ` Jan Kara
2019-05-07 16:19 ` Jan Kara
2019-05-07 19:12 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-05-08 16:09 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-05-09 10:31 ` Jan Kara
2019-05-09 10:31 ` Jan Kara
2019-05-10 15:24 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-05-13 16:33 ` Jan Kara
2019-05-13 16:33 ` Jan Kara
2019-05-13 16:47 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-05-09 9:46 ` Jan Kara
2019-05-09 9:46 ` Jan Kara
2019-05-10 14:57 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-05-13 16:23 ` Jan Kara
2019-05-13 16:23 ` Jan Kara
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190505130528.GA23075@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.