From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [xfs] c91d38b57f: stress-ng.chown.ops_per_sec 70.2% improvement
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2025 22:54:57 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aOJckY5NnB2MaOqj@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251003075615.GA13238@lst.de>
On Fri, Oct 03, 2025 at 09:56:15AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 04:11:29PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > kernel test robot noticed a 70.2% improvement of stress-ng.chown.ops_per_sec on:
>
> I wonder what stress-ng shown is doing, because unless it is mixing fsync
> and ilock-heavy operations on the same node this would be highly
> unexpected.
stress-ng puts a fsync() at the end of every ops loop:
do {
int ret;
ret = do_fchown(fd, bad_fd, cap_chown, uid, gid);
if ((ret < 0) && (ret != -EPERM)) {
pr_fail("%s: fchown failed, errno=%d (%s)%s\n",
args->name, errno, strerror(errno),
stress_get_fs_type(filename));
rc = EXIT_FAILURE;
break;
}
ret = do_chown(chown, filename, cap_chown, uid, gid);
if ((ret < 0) && (ret != -EPERM)) {
pr_fail("%s: chown %s failed, errno=%d (%s)%s\n",
args->name, filename, errno, strerror(errno),
stress_get_fs_type(filename));
rc = EXIT_FAILURE;
break;
}
ret = do_chown(lchown, filename, cap_chown, uid, gid);
if ((ret < 0) && (ret != -EPERM)) {
pr_fail("%s: lchown %s failed, errno=%d (%s)%s\n",
args->name, filename, errno, strerror(errno),
stress_get_fs_type(filename));
rc = EXIT_FAILURE;
break;
}
>>>>>>>> (void)shim_fsync(fd);
stress_bogo_inc(args);
} while (stress_continue(args));
It's also triggering a change in rwsem contention behaviour on the
inode->i_rwsem in chown_common(), from sleeping to spinning, because
fsync() no longer causes ILOCK_EXCL lock contention and causes the
task currently doing a chown operation to wait on the ILOCK_EXCL
whilst holding the inode->i_rwsem.
Hence all the chown() operations now trigger the spin-on-waiter
heuristic on the inode->i_rwsem as the lock holder never releases
the CPU during the modification. That explains why the CPU usage
increase (from ~2 CPUs to ~50 CPUs) is way out of proportion with
the actual increase in performance.
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-05 11:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-02 8:11 kernel test robot
2025-10-03 7:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-10-03 13:38 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-10-05 11:54 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2025-10-07 6:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aOJckY5NnB2MaOqj@dread.disaster.area \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®