On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 10:46:01PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 04:41:22PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > Greeting,
> >
> > FYI, we noticed a -23.7% regression of vm-scalability.median due to commit:
> >
> >
> > commit: 8bb3c61bafa8c1cd222ada602bb94ff23119e738 ("vfs: Convert ramfs, shmem, tmpfs, devtmpfs, rootfs to use the new mount API")
> > https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git work.mount
> >
> > in testcase: vm-scalability
> > on test machine: 88 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v4 @ 2.20GHz with 128G memory
> > with following parameters:
> >
> > runtime: 300s
> > size: 16G
> > test: shm-pread-rand
> > cpufreq_governor: performance
> > ucode: 0xb000036
>
> That thing loses size=... option. Both size= and nr_blocks= affect the
> same thing (->max_blocks), but the parser keeps track of the options
> it has seen and applying the parsed data to superblock checks only
> whether nr_blocks= had been there. IOW, size= gets parsed, but the
> result goes nowhere.
>
> I'm not sure whether it's better to fix the patch up or redo it from
> scratch - it needs to be carved up anyway and it's highly non-transparent,
> so I'm probably going to replace the damn thing entirely with something
> that would be easier to follow.
... and this
+ { Opt_huge, "deny", SHMEM_HUGE_DENY },
+ { Opt_huge, "force", SHMEM_HUGE_FORCE },
had been wrong - huge=deny and huge=force should not be accepted _and_
fs_parameter_enum is not suitable for negative constants right now
anyway.
