Hi Hsin-Yi, On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 10:29 PM Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 9:21 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 08:43:45PM +0800, Xiongwei Song wrote: > > > Hi Hsin-Yi and Matthew, > > > > > > With the patch from the attachment on linux 5.10, ran the command as I > > > mentioned earlier, > > > got the results below: > > > 1:40.65 (1m + 40.65s) > > > 1:10.12 > > > 1:11.10 > > > 1:11.47 > > > 1:11.59 > > > 1:11.94 > > > 1:11.86 > > > 1:12.04 > > > 1:12.21 > > > 1:12.06 > > > > > > The performance has improved obviously, but compared to linux 4.18, the > > > performance is not so good. > > > > I think you shouldn't compare the performance with 4.18 directly, > since there might be other factors that impact the performance. Make sense. >I'd suggest comparing the same kernel version with: > a) with this patch > b) with c1f6925e1091 ("mm: put readahead pages in cache earlier") reverted. With 9eec1d897139 ("squashfs: provide backing_dev_info in order to disable read-ahead") reverted and applied 0001-WIP-squashfs-implement-readahead.patch, test result on linux 5.18: 1:41.51 (1m + 41.51s) 1:08.11 1:10.37 1:11.17 1:11.32 1:11.59 1:12.23 1:12.08 1:12.76 1:12.51 performance worse 1 ~ 2s than linux 5.18 vanilla. > > According to https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/Ynfzh2ifG85MZEoN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/t/ > It seems to be a 3 sec difference? 5 ~ 6s difference. Regards, Xiongwei > > 1:37.16 (1m + 37.16s) > 1:04.18 > 1:05.28 > 1:06.07 > 1:06.31 > 1:06.58 > 1:06.80 > 1:06.79 > 1:06.95 > 1:06.61 > > > > Moreover, I wanted to test on linux 5.18. But I think I should revert > > > 9eec1d897139 ("squashfs: provide backing_dev_info in order to disable > > > read-ahead"), > > > right? Otherwise, the patch doesn't work? > > > > I've never seen patch 9eec1d897139 before. If you're going to point > > out bugs in my code, at least have the decency to cc me on it. It > > should never have gone in, and should be reverted so the problem can > > be fixed properly.