On 1/18/24 11:53 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 1/18/24 10:33, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 1/18/24 11:31 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> On 1/18/24 10:04, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> If we attempt to insert a list of requests but someone else is already >>>> running an insertion, then fallback to queueing it internally and let >>>> the existing inserter finish the operation. >>> >>> Because this patch adds significant complexity: what are the use cases >>> that benefit from this kind of optimization? Are these perhaps workloads >>> on systems with many CPU cores and fast storage? If the storage is fast, >>> why to use mq-deadline instead of "none" as I/O-scheduler? >> >> You and others complain that mq-deadline is slow and doesn't scale, >> these two patches help improve that situation. Not sure why this is even >> a question? > > How much does this patch improve performance? Do you need me to link the cover letter that you were CC'ed on? -- Jens Axboe
