On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 01:00:52PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 6/29/22 12:40 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 11:16:10AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> Not sure what Christoph change you are referring to, but all the ones > >> that I did to improve the init side were all backed by numbers I ran at > >> that time (and most/all of the commit messages will have that data). So > >> yes, it is indeed still very noticeable. Maybe not at 100K IOPS, but at > >> 10M on a core it most certainly is. > > > > I was referring to 609be1066731fea86436f5f91022f82e592ab456. You > > signed off on it, you must remember it...? > > I'm sure we all remember each and every commit that gets applied, > particularly with such a precise description of the change. > > >> I'm all for having solid and maintainable code, obviously, but frivolous > >> bloating of structures and more expensive setup cannot be hand waved > >> away with "it doesn't matter if we touch 3 or 6 cachelines" because we > >> obviously have a disagreement on that. > > > > I wouldn't propose inflating struct _bio_ like that. But Jens, to be > > blunt - I know we have different priorities in the way we write code. > > Your writeback throttling code was buggy for _ages_ and I had users > > hitting deadlocks there that I pinged you about, and I could not make > > heads or tails of how that code was supposed to work and not for lack > > of time spent trying! > > OK Kent, you just wasted your 2nd chance here. Plonk. There are many > rebuttals that could be made here, but I won't waste my time on it, nor > would it be appropriate. > > Come back when you know how to act professionally. Or don't come back > at all. Jens, you're just acting like your code is immune to criticism, and I don't have an eyeroll big enough for that. We all know how you care about chasing every last of those 10 million iops - and not much else.
