Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > A performance regression using fsstress? That's not a program >> > intended to be a useful benchmark for measuring performance. >> >> Right. fsstress is used as stress tool for me too as part of CI, with >> background vmstat 1. Anyway, it is why I noticed this. >> >> I agree it would not be high priority. But I don't think we should stop >> to optimize it. > > But you're not proposing any sort of optimisation at all - you're > simply proposing to hack around the problem so you don't have to > care about it. The VFS is a shared resource - it has to work well > for everyone - and that means we need to fix problems and not ignore > them. Agree, vfs has to work well for everyone. To work well, vfs should not force unnecessary overhead/wait. I'm not saying to stop optimizing wait_sb_inodes() itself, I'm saying it is not enough. Thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
