On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:43:50AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/31/24 3:37 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 10:21:13AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:05:30AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >>> This series is a subset of the series you tested and doesn't include the > >>> block layer changes which most likely were the cause of the performance > >>> regression. > >>> > >>> This is why I separated the block layer changes from the rest of the series > >>> and marked them as RFC. > >>> > >>> The current patch set is viable for HMM and VFIO. Can you please retest > >>> only this series and leave the block layer changes for later till Christoph > >>> finds the answer for the performance regression? > >> > >> As the subset doesn't touch block code or code called by block I don't > >> think we need Jens to benchmark it, unless he really wants to. > > > > He wrote this sentence in his email, while responding on subset which > > doesn't change anything in block layer: "just want to make sure > > something like this doesn't get merged until that is both fully > > understood and sorted out." > > > > This series works like a charm for RDMA (HMM) and VFIO. > > I don't care about rdma/vfio, nor do I test it, so you guys can do > whatever you want there, as long as it doesn't regress the iommu side. > The block series is separate, so we'll deal with that when we get there. > > I don't know why you CC'ed linux-block on the series. Because of the second part, which is marked as RFC and based on this one. I think that it is better to present whole picture to everyone interested in the discussion. Thanks > > -- > Jens Axboe >
