Re: [lkp-robot] [fs] 91f9943e1c: aim7.jobs-per-min -26.6% regression

2017-10-16 Thread Ye Xiaolong
On 10/16, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >The only change for the non-nowait case is that we now do a trylock before >locking i_rwsem. In the past that was the more optimal pattern. Can you >test the patch below if that's not the case anymore? We have a few more >instances like that which might also

Re: [lkp-robot] [fs] 91f9943e1c: aim7.jobs-per-min -26.6% regression

2017-10-16 Thread Ye Xiaolong
On 10/16, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >The only change for the non-nowait case is that we now do a trylock before >locking i_rwsem. In the past that was the more optimal pattern. Can you >test the patch below if that's not the case anymore? We have a few more >instances like that which might also

Re: [lkp-robot] [fs] 91f9943e1c: aim7.jobs-per-min -26.6% regression

2017-10-16 Thread Christoph Hellwig
The only change for the non-nowait case is that we now do a trylock before locking i_rwsem. In the past that was the more optimal pattern. Can you test the patch below if that's not the case anymore? We have a few more instances like that which might also want to be changed then. diff --git

Re: [lkp-robot] [fs] 91f9943e1c: aim7.jobs-per-min -26.6% regression

2017-10-16 Thread Christoph Hellwig
The only change for the non-nowait case is that we now do a trylock before locking i_rwsem. In the past that was the more optimal pattern. Can you test the patch below if that's not the case anymore? We have a few more instances like that which might also want to be changed then. diff --git