linux-ext4 - Re: [fsnotify] 4c40d6efc8: unixbench.score -3.3% regression

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87lf5mi7mv.fsf@collabora.com>
Date:   Sat, 31 Jul 2021 15:51:52 -0400
From:   Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     0day robot <lkp@...el.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkp@...ts.01.org, ying.huang@...el.com, feng.tang@...el.com,
        zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Khazhismel Kumykov <khazhy@...gle.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, kernel@...labora.com,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [fsnotify] 4c40d6efc8: unixbench.score -3.3% regression

Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> writes:

> On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 9:20 AM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Greeting,
>>
>> FYI, we noticed a -3.3% regression of unixbench.score due to commit:
>>
>>
>> commit: 4c40d6efc8b22b88a45c335ffd6d25b55d769f5b ("[PATCH v4 08/16] fsnotify: pass arguments of fsnotify() in struct fsnotify_event_info")
>> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Gabriel-Krisman-Bertazi/File-system-wide-monitoring/20210721-001444
>> base: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jack/linux-fs.git fsnotify
>>
>> in testcase: unixbench
>> on test machine: 96 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU @ 2.30GHz with 128G memory
>> with following parameters:
>>
>>         runtime: 300s
>>         nr_task: 1
>>         test: pipe
>>         cpufreq_governor: performance
>>         ucode: 0x4003006
>>
>> test-description: UnixBench is the original BYTE UNIX benchmark suite aims to test performance of Unix-like system.
>> test-url: https://github.com/kdlucas/byte-unixbench
>>
>> In addition to that, the commit also has significant impact on the following tests:
>>
>> +------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> | testcase: change | will-it-scale: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -1.3% regression                        |
>> | test machine     | 192 threads 4 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 9242 CPU @ 2.30GHz with 192G memory |
>> | test parameters  | cpufreq_governor=performance                                                        |
>> |                  | mode=thread                                                                         |
>> |                  | nr_task=100%                                                                        |
>> |                  | test=eventfd1                                                                       |
>> |                  | ucode=0x5003006                                                                     |
>> +------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>>
>> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
>>
>
> Gabriel,
>
> It looks like my change throws away much of the performance gain for
> small IO on pipes without any watches that was achieved by commit
> 71d734103edf ("fsnotify: Rearrange fast path to minimise overhead
> when there is no watcher").
>
> I think the way to fix it is to lift the optimization in __fsnotify()
> to the fsnotify_parent() inline wrapper as Mel considered doing
> but was not sure it was worth the effort at the time.
>
> It's not completely trivial. I think it requires setting a flag
> MNT_FSNOTIFY_WATCHED when there are watches on the
> vfsmount. I will look into it.

Amir,

Since this patch is a clean up, would you mind if I drop it from my
series and base my work on top of mainline? Eventually, we can rebase
this patch, when the performance issue is addressed.

I ask because I'm about to send a v5 and I'm not sure if I should wait
to have this fixed.

-- 
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi