On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:15:23PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, 2017-08-29 at 19:16 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > Hi Bart, > > > > Did you see perf regression on SRP with smaller jobs after applying > > my patchset V3? > > > > I just run the test with 16 jobs(the system has 16 CPU cores) instead of 64, > > looks not see perf regression on SRP about v4.13-rc6+blk-next(2nd column) VS. > > v4.13-rc6+blk-next+patch V3(3rd column): > > > > > > --------------------------------------- > > IOPS(K) | NONE | NONE > > --------------------------------------- > > read | 475.83 | 485.88 > > --------------------------------------- > > randread | 142.86 | 141.96 > > --------------------------------------- > > write | 483.9 | 492.39 > > --------------------------------------- > > randwrite | 124.83 | 124.53 > > --------------------------------------- > > [ ... ] > > --------------------------------------- > > LAT(us) | NONE | NONE > > --------------------------------------- > > read | 2.15 | 2.11 > > --------------------------------------- > > randread | 7.17 | 7.21 > > --------------------------------------- > > write | 2.11 | 2.08 > > --------------------------------------- > > randwrite | 8.2 | 8.22 > > --------------------------------------- > > [ ... ] > > Hello Ming, > > Although I would prefer to see measurement data against an SRP target system > that supports a higher workload (>1M IOPS) and Hi Bart, For so higher workload, I guess it often requires to increase .cmd_per_lun. > also for a high-end NVMe drive, My patch won't affect NVMe drive since NVMe driver doesn't become busy usually. > I think the above data is sufficient to show that the performance impact of > your patch series is most likely small enough even for high-end SCSI initiator > drivers. OK. -- Ming
