On 2021/8/27 11:13, Jens Axboe wrote: > 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. Yes, It's already rc7 and it's no longer good for big changes. Revert is the best solution, and apply my patch is a compromise solution. >
