From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 661903BB670; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 06:48:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784270902; cv=none; b=tzZbwa4FDrbSpYgBYx4W0zV1y2FuGWem42iIt4suGAKUbw5S2mCHj+q6IO8B3BFvRmt10AEgt7dsH/ChCArxW7si5xHLJejKRXB/73lgtFZFbHcxJSTZb1meJtZDgph58USsojq42lSa9h7ChIySoS05x2fahGOnmPlb9jf1xDg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784270902; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2SImvpveMUJl7WEI82HNsMIayq/rGPsDMRwKM/Fed1M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=LS4FJWujmeeiTaxnZwSDJeaw4oSEwWmP7wnj1X4TxUjOiDrktfbtk6rV3xfDLp+LRt81WfHVFo2SndDlmHGw0rc9kpgOlnmygkD/KlUALJTSkrftH8x1jQK89ySFp+ZR7i9LfC/UgcKBEsoPGhUloF7LYdTlcNqtbH83+czxANE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id F29BE68AFE; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 08:48:07 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 08:48:07 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: kernel test robot Cc: Christoph Hellwig , oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Carlos Maiolino , Carlos Maiolino , "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linus:master] [xfs] 9b64ca202f: fxmark.ssd_xfs_DRBH_4_bufferedio.works/sec 24.1% regression Message-ID: <20260717064807.GA23992@lst.de> References: <202607161601.867c143e-lkp@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <202607161601.867c143e-lkp@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 09:13:19PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > > > Hello, > > kernel test robot noticed a 24.1% regression of fxmark.ssd_xfs_DRBH_4_bufferedio.works/sec on: > This looks really odd. While the patch adds a bit more computation, that is very cheap shifting and masking. So the only theory I have here is that this somehow affects the inode data layout. Can you re-run this with the patch below applied on top of commit 9b64ca202f364a6bf8e19bdd20953bc2d776c67f ? diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.h index 57192adc7744..319e83d4a087 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.h +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.h @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ struct xfs_dinode; */ struct xfs_imap { xfs_agblock_t im_agbno; /* starting agbno of inode cluster */ + uint32_t __im_pad; unsigned short im_boffset; /* offset in inode cluster in bytes */ };