Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 9 Sep 2022 12:40:14 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>,
        Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>,
        Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>,
        Ted Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 v3] ext4: Fix performance regression with mballoc
Message-ID: <20220909104014.xgzdlzem3f7mbccd@quack3>
References: <20220908091301.147-1-jack@suse.cz>
 <4826b1af-1264-3b3a-e71c-38937c75641c@i2se.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4826b1af-1264-3b3a-e71c-38937c75641c@i2se.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu 08-09-22 12:36:10, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
> Am 08.09.22 um 11:21 schrieb Jan Kara:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Here is the third version of my mballoc improvements to avoid spreading
> > allocations with mb_optimize_scan=1. Since v2 there are only small changes and
> > fixes found during review and testing. Overall the series looks mostly ready to
> > go, I just didn't see any comments regarding patch 3 - a fix of metabg handling
> > in the Orlov allocator which is kind of independent, I've just found it when
> > reading the code. Also patch 5 needs final review after all the fixes.
> > 
> > Changes since v1:
> > - reworked data structure for CR 1 scan
> > - make small closed files use locality group preallocation
> > - fix metabg handling in the Orlov allocator
> > 
> > Changes since v2:
> > - whitespace fixes
> > - fix outdated comment
> > - fix handling of mb_structs_summary procfs file
> > - fix bad unlock on error recovery path
> 
> unfortunately the real patches doesn't have v3 which leads to confusion.

Yeah, OK, I've updated my scripting for posting patches to include version
in each posted patch :)

> Just a note: in case this series cannot be applied for stable (5.15), we
> need a second solution to fix the regression there.

My plan is to backport the current series. It is not that invasive so it
should be doable...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR