On 2021/8/28 10:42, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: > > > 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. Revert: 253K/0/0 258K/0/0 With your patch: 258K/0/0 252K/0/0 With my patch: 245K/0/0 258K/0/0 244K/0/0 I see that Jens has already pushed "revert" into v5.14-rc8. > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bart. >> . >>
