From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25D7C7EE2D for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 13:05:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233913AbjEVNFF (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2023 09:05:05 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33738 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234200AbjEVNEx (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2023 09:04:53 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5630495; Mon, 22 May 2023 06:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E146C61554; Mon, 22 May 2023 13:04:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 537D5C433D2; Mon, 22 May 2023 13:04:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1684760691; bh=mFfLhqjncW4OLzUDyLmeZPcjuCp7LsL0ZYwEqeI6upY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=MDOTyggWu4xxm0+x1HgMCzIkoWLn7pPelgUikEj/GT4l6ixVnKu47mQ/OF6BW+2dr 4T/86huG8affHcPTbR7KBXk6k4ez4EEMrLDs+qlp06AQ4vvn69+X3VyKFZXlnt9gsG gZlHrCFQWdff4CNiRB/21DLex+JtnDOr31jKhBgYZtBefcruNvfhWvIBqEqca5ZhE6 SRmqdUKPm5SUSncISh1SvCYNzkOz8g1Ildx3yPXdDvQLk2y6M/5B8bp5vfYXnu1zdB KrHFPZ8+b/o7MfMVy4+kWAjoROvQ7Jtqw6zUSliiKRlgemkP1TQAvAqwKCwH/8bh+V q7fvKZZR3MOYQ== Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 15:04:46 +0200 From: Christian Brauner To: Dave Chinner Cc: Kent Overstreet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner , Alexander Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/32] vfs: inode cache conversion to hash-bl Message-ID: <20230522-unlustig-flegel-7a1d0d0adae3@brauner> References: <20230509165657.1735798-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev> <20230509165657.1735798-23-kent.overstreet@linux.dev> <20230510044557.GF2651828@dread.disaster.area> <20230516-brand-hocken-a7b5b07e406c@brauner> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 09:15:34AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 12:17:04PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 05:45:19PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 02:45:57PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > There's a bit of a backlog before I get around to looking at this but > > > it'd be great if we'd have a few reviewers for this change. > > > > It is well tested - it's been in the bcachefs tree for ages with zero > > issues. I'm pulling it out of the bcachefs-prerequisites series though > > since Dave's still got it in his tree, he's got a newer version with > > better commit messages. > > > > It's a significant performance boost on metadata heavy workloads for any > > non-XFS filesystem, we should definitely get it in. > > I've got an up to date vfs-scale tree here (6.4-rc1) but I have not > been able to test it effectively right now because my local > performance test server is broken. I'll do what I can on the old > small machine that I have to validate it when I get time, but that > might be a few weeks away.... > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dgc/linux-xfs.git vfs-scale > > As it is, the inode hash-bl changes have zero impact on XFS because > it has it's own highly scalable lockless, sharded inode cache. So > unless I'm explicitly testing ext4 or btrfs scalability (rare) it's > not getting a lot of scalability exercise. It is being used by the > root filesytsems on all those test VMs, but that's about it... I think there's a bunch of perf tests being run on -next. So we can stuff it into a vfs.unstable.* branch and see what -next thinks of this performance wise.