On 8/26/21 5:05 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 8/26/21 6:03 PM, Bart Van Assche 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. With the patch series that is available at https://github.com/bvanassche/linux/tree/block-for-next the same test reports 1090 K IOPS or only 1% below the v5.11 result. I will post that series on the linux-block mailing list after I have finished testing that series. Bart.
