Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20200223011154.GY23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
        <20200301215125.GA873525@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
        <CAHk-=wh1Q=H-YstHZRKfEw2McUBX2_TfTc=+5N-iH8DSGz44Qg@mail.gmail.com>
        <20200302003926.GM23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
        <87o8tdgfu8.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
        <20200304002434.GO23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 03 Mar 2020 23:23:39 -0600
In-Reply-To: <20200304002434.GO23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (Al Viro's message of
        "Wed, 4 Mar 2020 00:24:34 +0000")
Message-ID: <87wo80g0bo.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHSET] sanitized pathwalk machinery (v3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 05:48:31PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> > I hope it gets serious beating, though - it touches pretty much every
>> > codepath in pathname resolution.  Is there any way to sic the bots on
>> > a branch, short of "push it into -next and wait for screams"?
>> 
>> Last I looked pushing a branch to kernel.org was enough for the
>> kbuild bots.  Sending patches to LKML is also enough for those bots.
>> 
>> I don't know if that kind of bot is what you need testing your code.
>
> Build bots are generally nice, but in this case... pretty much all of
> the changes are in fs/namei.c, which is not all that sensitive to
> config/architecture/whatnot.  Sure, something like "is audit enabled?"
> may affect the build problems, but not much beyond that.
>
> What was that Intel-run(?) bot that posts "such-and-such metrics has
> 42% regression on such-and-such commit" from time to time?
> <checks>
> Subject: [locking/qspinlock] 7b6da71157: unixbench.score 8.4% improvement
> seems to be the latest of that sort,
> From: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>
>
> Not sure how much of pathwalk-heavy loads is covered by profiling
> bots of that sort, unfortunately... ;-/

Do the xfs-tests cover that sort of thing?
The emphasis is stress testing the filesystem not the VFS but there is a
lot of overlap between the two.

Eric