On 8/26/21 5:05 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> Here is an overview of the tests I ran so far, all on the same test >> setup: >> * No I/O scheduler: about 5630 K IOPS. >> * Kernel v5.11 + mq-deadline: about 1100 K IOPS. >> * block-for-next + mq-deadline: about 760 K IOPS. >> * block-for-next with improved mq-deadline performance: about 970 K IOPS. > > So we're still off by about 12%, I don't think that is good enough. > That's assuming that v5.11 + mq-deadline is the same as for-next with > the mq-deadline change reverted? Because that would be the key number to > compare it with. A quick attempt to eliminate the ktime_get_ns() call from __dd_dispatch_request() improved performance a few percent but not as much as I was hoping. I need a few days of time to run these measurements, to optimize performance further and to rerun all functional and performance tests. Thanks, Bart.
