[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200606181802.GA15638@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 20:18:02 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
Cc: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
lkp@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [kernfs] ea7c5fc39a: stress-ng.stream.ops_per_sec 11827.2%
improvement
On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 11:52:16PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a 11827.2% improvement of stress-ng.stream.ops_per_sec due to commit:
>
>
> commit: ea7c5fc39ab005b501e0c7666c29db36321e4f74 ("[PATCH 1/4] kernfs: switch kernfs to use an rwsem")
> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Ian-Kent/kernfs-proposed-locking-and-concurrency-improvement/20200525-134849
>
Seriously? That's a huge performance increase, and one that feels
really odd. Why would a stress-ng test be touching sysfs?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists