From: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
To: v9fs@lists.linux.dev, Remi Pommarel <repk@triplefau.lt>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>,
Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>,
Remi Pommarel <repk@triplefau.lt>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] 9p: Performance improvements for build workloads
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 12:37:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4711141.LvFx2qVVIh@weasel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1769013622.git.repk@triplefau.lt>
On Wednesday, 21 January 2026 20:56:07 CET Remi Pommarel wrote:
> This patchset introduces several performance optimizations for the 9p
> filesystem when used with cache=loose option (exclusive or read only
> mounts). These improvements particularly target workloads with frequent
> lookups of non-existent paths and repeated symlink resolutions.
[...]
> Here is summary of the different hostapd/wpa_supplicant build times:
>
> - Baseline (no patch): 2m18.702s
> - negative dentry caching (patches 1-2): 1m46.198s (23% improvement)
> - Above + symlink caching (patches 1-3): 1m26.302s (an additional 18%
> improvement, 37% in total)
>
> With this ~37% performance gain, 9pfs with cache=loose can compete with
> virtiofs for (at least) this specific scenario. Although this benchmark
> is not the most typical, I do think that these caching optimizations
> could benefit a wide range of other workflows as well.
I did a wide range of tests. In broad average I'm also seeing ~40% improvement
when compiling. Some individual sources even had 60% improvements and more. So
there is quite a big variance.
I did not encounter misbehaviours in my tests, so feel free to add:
Tested-by: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
I still need to make a proper review though.
/Christian
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-04 12:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-21 19:56 [PATCH v2 0/3] 9p: Performance improvements for build workloads Remi Pommarel
2026-01-21 19:56 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] 9p: Cache negative dentries for lookup performance Remi Pommarel
2026-02-11 15:49 ` Christian Schoenebeck
2026-02-12 9:16 ` Remi Pommarel
2026-02-18 12:46 ` Christian Schoenebeck
2026-02-21 20:35 ` Remi Pommarel
2026-02-23 14:45 ` Christian Schoenebeck
2026-01-21 19:56 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] 9p: Introduce option for negative dentry cache retention time Remi Pommarel
2026-02-11 15:58 ` Christian Schoenebeck
2026-02-12 9:24 ` Remi Pommarel
2026-02-18 12:56 ` Christian Schoenebeck
2026-01-21 19:56 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] 9p: Enable symlink caching in page cache Remi Pommarel
2026-02-12 15:35 ` Christian Schoenebeck
2026-02-12 21:42 ` Remi Pommarel
2026-02-15 12:36 ` Dominique Martinet
2026-02-19 10:18 ` Christian Schoenebeck
2026-01-21 23:23 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] 9p: Performance improvements for build workloads Dominique Martinet
2026-02-04 11:37 ` Christian Schoenebeck [this message]
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=4711141.LvFx2qVVIh@weasel \
--to=linux_oss@crudebyte.com \
--cc=asmadeus@codewreck.org \
--cc=ericvh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lucho@ionkov.net \
--cc=repk@triplefau.lt \
--cc=v9fs@lists.linux.dev \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox