From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE6CCC4742C for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 14:10:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29AD221D46 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 14:10:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 29AD221D46 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 4523A6B005C; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 09:10:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 403046B006C; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 09:10:22 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 2F1FD6B006E; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 09:10:22 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0184.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.184]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021156B005C for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 09:10:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin09.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995B3181AEF1E for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 14:10:21 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77468693442.09.hot54_170bf95272f5 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE5A180AD801 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 14:10:21 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: hot54_170bf95272f5 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2246 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by imf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 14:10:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B6FABD6; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 14:10:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ds.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 10065) id E42B9DA7D7; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 15:08:37 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 15:08:37 +0100 From: David Sterba To: kernel test robot Cc: Josef Bacik , David Sterba , LKML , Linux Memory Management List , lkp@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com, ying.huang@intel.com, feng.tang@intel.com, zhengjun.xing@intel.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [btrfs] fac2f60d5f: fsmark.files_per_sec 62.6% improvement Message-ID: <20201110140837.GE6756@suse.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz, kernel test robot , Josef Bacik , David Sterba , LKML , Linux Memory Management List , lkp@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com, ying.huang@intel.com, feng.tang@intel.com, zhengjun.xing@intel.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <20201110060012.GA3197@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201110060012.GA3197@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000073, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 02:00:12PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > Greeting, > > FYI, we noticed a 62.6% improvement of fsmark.files_per_sec due to commit: > > > commit: fac2f60d5fe83fd45ee08a85c2eb7a09659edbe3 ("btrfs: switch extent buffer tree lock to rw_semaphore") Thanks for the report, that's a significant improvement, confirming the trend that switching the locks does not regress. I've skimmed other collected stats and it seems like an overall improvement, so the effects should be noticeable for other metadata-heavy workloads too.