On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 12:27 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 9:20 AM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx> 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 <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
>
> 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.
