Re: [fsnotify] c738fbabb0: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -9.5% regression

From: Rong Chen
Date: Thu Jul 23 2020 - 22:47:45 EST

Next message: kernel test robot: "include/asm-generic/qspinlock.h:94:9: sparse: sparse: context imbalance in 'rcu_nocb_unlock' - unexpected unlock"
Previous message: kernel test robot: "arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c:255:15: sparse: struct kvm_apic_map __rcu COPYING CREDITS Documentation Kbuild Kconfig LICENSES MAINTAINERS Makefile README arch block certs crypto drivers fs include init ipc kernel lib mm net samples scripts security sound tools usr virt"
In reply to: Amir Goldstein: "Re: [fsnotify] c738fbabb0: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -9.5% regression"
Next in thread: Amir Goldstein: "Re: [fsnotify] c738fbabb0: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -9.5% regression"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 7/21/20 11:59 PM, Amir Goldstein wrote:

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:15 AM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Greeting,

FYI, we noticed a -9.5% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:

commit: c738fbabb0ff62d0f9a9572e56e65d05a1b34c6a ("fsnotify: fold fsnotify() call into fsnotify_parent()")

Strange, that's a pretty dumb patch moving some inlined code from one
function to
another (assuming there are no fsnotify marks in this test).

Unless I am missing something the only thing that changes slightly is
an extra d_inode(file->f_path.dentry) deference.
I can get rid of it.

Is it possible to ask for a re-test with fix patch (attached)?

Hi Amir,

We failed to apply this patch, could you tell us the base commit or the base branch?

Best Regards,
Rong Chen