On 8/26/21 8:48 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > 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. OK sounds good. I do think we should just do the revert at this point, any real fix is going to end up being bigger than I'd like at this point. Then we can re-introduce the feature once we're happy with the results. -- Jens Axboe
