On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 3:15 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I know I said it privately, but I'll say it here in public, very cool > finding, this is nice work! Thanks! I appreciate your earlier feedback as well. > You had mentioned that the size:68 numbers were going to be re-run, has > that happened and this really is that much of a boost to that size? Or > is this the original numbers? I re-ran the test, and the numbers are consistent across multiple runs. I’m also surprised by how significant the improvement is for the 68-byte block size. Thanks, Brian Johannesmeyer
