On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 12:27 PM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 9:20 AM kernel test robot wrote: > > > > > > > > Greeting, > > > > FYI, we noticed a -3.3% regression of unixbench.score due to commit: > > > > > > commit: 4c40d6efc8b22b88a45c335ffd6d25b55d769f5b ("[PATCH v4 08/16] fsnotify: pass arguments of fsnotify() in struct fsnotify_event_info") > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Gabriel-Krisman-Bertazi/File-system-wide-monitoring/20210721-001444 > > base: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jack/linux-fs.git fsnotify > > > > in testcase: unixbench > > on test machine: 96 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU @ 2.30GHz with 128G memory > > with following parameters: > > > > runtime: 300s > > nr_task: 1 > > test: pipe > > cpufreq_governor: performance > > ucode: 0x4003006 > > > > test-description: UnixBench is the original BYTE UNIX benchmark suite aims to test performance of Unix-like system. > > test-url: https://github.com/kdlucas/byte-unixbench > > > > In addition to that, the commit also has significant impact on the following tests: > > > > +------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > | testcase: change | will-it-scale: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -1.3% regression | > > | test machine | 192 threads 4 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 9242 CPU @ 2.30GHz with 192G memory | > > | test parameters | cpufreq_governor=performance | > > | | mode=thread | > > | | nr_task=100% | > > | | test=eventfd1 | > > | | ucode=0x5003006 | > > +------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > > > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag > > Reported-by: kernel test robot > > > > Gabriel, > > It looks like my change throws away much of the performance gain for > small IO on pipes without any watches that was achieved by commit > 71d734103edf ("fsnotify: Rearrange fast path to minimise overhead > when there is no watcher"). > > I think the way to fix it is to lift the optimization in __fsnotify() > to the fsnotify_parent() inline wrapper as Mel considered doing > but was not sure it was worth the effort at the time. > > It's not completely trivial. I think it requires setting a flag > MNT_FSNOTIFY_WATCHED when there are watches on the > vfsmount. I will look into it. > Oliver, Would it be possible to request a re-test with the branch: https://github.com/amir73il/linux fsnotify-perf The patch at the tip of that branch is the one this regression report has blamed. My expectation is that the patch at fsnotify-perf^ ("fsnotify: optimize the case of no marks of any type") will improve performance of the test case compared to baseline (v5.14-rc3) and that the patch at the tip of fsnotify-perf would not regress performance. Thanks, Amir.