On 19.09.22 17:18, hazem ahmed mohamed wrote: > > I am sending this e-mail to report a performance regression that’s > caused by commit 244adf6426(ext4: make dioread_nolock the default) , I > am listing the performance regression symptoms below & our analysis > for the reported regression. FWIW, that patch went into v5.6-rc1~113^2~12 And BTW: it seems 0-day back then noticed that 244adf6426 caused a performance regression as well, but it seems that was ignored: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20201024120829.GK31092@shao2-debian/ Anyway, now to the main reason why I write this mail: [TLDR: I'm adding this regression report to the list of tracked regressions; all text from me you find below is based on a few templates paragraphs you might have encountered already already in similar form.] Thanks for the report. To be sure below issue doesn't fall through the cracks unnoticed, I'm adding it to regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot: #regzbot ^introduced 244adf6426 #regzbot ignore-activity This isn't a regression? This issue or a fix for it are already discussed somewhere else? It was fixed already? You want to clarify when the regression started to happen? Or point out I got the title or something else totally wrong? Then just reply -- ideally with also telling regzbot about it, as explained here: https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/tracked-regression/ Reminder for developers: When fixing the issue, add 'Link:' tags pointing to the report (the mail this one replies to), as explained for in the Linux kernel's documentation; the webpage mention at the end of the last para explains why this is important for tracked regressions. Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat) P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
