From: Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lkp@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com
Subject: Re: [LKP] [ext4] 05c2c00f37: aim7.jobs-per-min -11.8% regression
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 13:28:25 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8ac28fce-0cfb-cc4d-1a3d-2f104ff46767@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210603161004.GL23647@quack2.suse.cz>
Hi Jan,
Do you have time to look at this? I re-test it in v5.13 and v5.14,
the regression still existed. Thanks.
On 6/4/2021 12:10 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> Similarly to previous test, 'Orig' is the original state before 05c2c00f37,
> 'Patched' is a state after commit 05c2c00f37, 'Hack1' is 05c2c00f37 but with
> lock_buffer() calls removed from orphan handling, 'Hack2' is 05c2c00f37 with
> lock_buffer() calls removed and checksumming moved from under orphan_lock,
> 'BH orphan lock' is 05c2c00f37 with orphan_lock replaced with sb buffer
> lock.
>
> As we can see with fixed filesystem size, the regression isn't actually
> that big anymore but it about matches what 0-day reported. Replacing orphan
> lock with superblock buffer_head lock makes things even much worse - not
> really surprising given we are replacing optimized mutex implementation
> with a bitlock. Just removing buffer lock (Hack1 test) doesn't seem to
> improve the results noticeably so that is not a problem. Moving
> checksumming out from under the orphan_lock would probably help noticeably
> (Hack2 test) but there's the problem when to compute checksums for
> nojournal mode and also we'd need to be very careful with all the other
> places updating superblock so that they serialize against orphan operations
> so that they cannot invalidate the checksum - IMO not very compelling.
>
> So as we chatted on today's call probably the best option is to leave the
> code as is for now and instead work on moving away from orphan list
> altogether. I'll revive my patches to do that.
--
Zhengjun Xing
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-03 5:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-27 12:08 [ext4] 05c2c00f37: aim7.jobs-per-min -11.8% regression kernel test robot
[not found] ` <a8947cee-11f5-8d59-a3ff-1c516276592e@linux.intel.com>
2021-05-20 9:51 ` [LKP] " Jan Kara
2021-05-21 1:16 ` Xing Zhengjun
2021-05-21 9:27 ` Jan Kara
2021-05-21 16:42 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2021-05-25 9:22 ` Jan Kara
2021-05-25 17:15 ` Theodore Ts'o
2021-05-31 16:57 ` Jan Kara
2021-06-03 16:10 ` Jan Kara
2021-09-03 5:28 ` Xing Zhengjun [this message]
2021-09-03 12:32 ` Theodore Ts'o
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=8ac28fce-0cfb-cc4d-1a3d-2f104ff46767@linux.intel.com \
--to=zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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