Re: (subset) [PATCH 22/32] vfs: inode cache conversion to hash-bl

[Mateusz Guzik]

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:28:38AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, 09 May 2023 12:56:47 -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > Because scalability of the global inode_hash_lock really, really
> > sucks.
> > 
> > 32-way concurrent create on a couple of different filesystems
> > before:
> > 
> > -   52.13%     0.04%  [kernel]            [k] ext4_create
> >    - 52.09% ext4_create
> >       - 41.03% __ext4_new_inode
> >          - 29.92% insert_inode_locked
> >             - 25.35% _raw_spin_lock
> >                - do_raw_spin_lock
> >                   - 24.97% __pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> > 
> > [...]
> 
> This is interesting completely independent of bcachefs so we should give
> it some testing.
> 
> I updated a few places that had outdated comments.
> 
> ---
> 
> Applied to the vfs.unstable.inode-hash branch of the vfs/vfs.git tree.
> Patches in the vfs.unstable.inode-hash branch should appear in linux-next soon.
> 
> Please report any outstanding bugs that were missed during review in a
> new review to the original patch series allowing us to drop it.
> 
> It's encouraged to provide Acked-bys and Reviewed-bys even though the
> patch has now been applied. If possible patch trailers will be updated.
> 
> tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git
> branch: vfs.unstable.inode-hash
> 
> [22/32] vfs: inode cache conversion to hash-bl
>         https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/e3e92d47e6b1

What, if anything, is blocking this? It is over 5 months now, I don't
see it in master nor -next.

To be clear there is no urgency as far as I'm concerned, but I did run
into something which is primarily bottlenecked by inode hash lock and
looks like the above should sort it out.

Looks like the patch was simply forgotten.

tl;dr can this land in -next please