On 2021/8/28 10:19, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 8/27/21 6:45 PM, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: >> On 2021/8/27 11:13, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 8/26/21 8:48 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>>> 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. > > Please take a look at the patch series that is available at > https://github.com/bvanassche/linux/tree/block-for-next. Performance for > that patch series is significantly better than with your patch. Yes, this patch is better than mine. However, Jens prefers to avoid the risk of functional stability in v5.14. v5.15 doesn't need my patch or revert. I'll test your patch this afternoon. I don't have the environment yet. > > Thanks, > > Bart. > . >
