On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 7:19 PM Jan Kara <jack(a)suse.cz&gt; wrote: > So I'd rather move the fsnotify call to vfs_unlink(), > vfs_rmdir(), simple_unlink(), simple_rmdir(), and then those few callers of > d_delete() that remain as you suggest elsewhere in this thread. And then we > get more consistent context for fsnotify_nameremove() and could just use > fsnotify_dirent(). > Yes, I much prefer this solution myself and I will follow up with it, but it would not be honest to suggest said solution as a stable fix to the performance regression that was introduced in v5.1. I think is it better if you choose between lesser evil: v1 with ifdef CONFIG_FSNOTIFY to fix build issue v2 as subtle as it is OR another obviously safe stable fix that you can think of

The change of cleansing d_delete() from fsnotify_nameremove() requires more research and is anyway not stable tree material - if not for the level of complexity, then because all the users of FS_DELETE from pseudo and clustered filesystems need more time to find regressions (we do not have test coverage for those in LTP).