> > 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. > > we tested this branch and the results meet your expectation. > > fsnotify-perf^ improves performance comparing to v5.14-rc3. tip is a little worse > than its parent (-3.3%), but still better than v5.14-rc3. > > below is detail data. > > > ========================================================================================= > compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/nr_task/rootfs/runtime/tbox_group/test/testcase/ucode: > gcc-9/performance/x86_64-rhel-8.3/1/debian-10.4-x86_64-20200603.cgz/300s/lkp-csl-2sp4/pipe/unixbench/0x4003006 > > commit: > v5.14-rc3 > 23050d041 ("fsnotify: optimize the case of no marks of any type") > 7446ba772 ("fsnotify: pass arguments of fsnotify() in struct fsnotify_event_info") > > v5.14-rc3 23050d0419441a02185e4ed5170 7446ba772ae107ab937cd04e880 > ---------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- > %stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev > \ | \ | \ > 1562 +8.0% 1688 +4.5% 1633 unixbench.score Hi Oliver, Thanks a lot for testing! I don't know what to make of the (-3.3%) degradation because I was expecting that fsnotify-perf^ would optimize out the calls to fsnotify() and fsnotify-perf only changes code from fsnotify() and below. But I guess it doesn't matter much as Gabriel said, its a cleanup patch and we can drop it. But now that I have this report I can post the fsnotify-perf^ patches :-) Thanks, Amir.
