lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCHSET] sanitized pathwalk machinery (v3)
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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-04 06:26    [W:0.169 / U:2.876 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site