Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 02:47:24PM +0200: > Some more tests this weekend; all looks fine. It appears that this also fixed > the performance degradation that I reported early in this thread. wow, I wouldn't have expected the EBADF fix patch to have any impact on performance. Maybe the build just behaved differently enough to take more time with the errors? > Again, benchmarks compiling a bunch of sources: > > Case Linux kernel version msize cache duration (average) > > A) EBADF fix only [1] 512000 loose 31m 14s > B) EBADF fix only [1] 512000 mmap 44m 1s > C) EBADF fix + clunk fixes [2] 512000 loose 29m 32s > D) EBADF fix + clunk fixes [2] 512000 mmap 44m 0s > E) 5.10.84 512000 loose 35m 5s > F) 5.10.84 512000 mmap 65m 5s > > [1] 5.19.0-rc2 + EBADF fix v3 patch (alone): > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220616211025.1790171-1-asmadeus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > [2] 5.19.0-rc2 + EBADF fix v3 patch + clunk fix patches, a.k.a. 9p-next: > https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commit/b0017602fdf6bd3f344dd49eaee8b6ffeed6dbac > > Conclusion: all thumbs in my possession pointing upwards. :) > > Thanks Dominique! Great news, thanks for the tests! :) -- Dominique
