Re: [axboe-block:for-next] [block] 1122c0c1cc: aim7.jobs-per-min 22.6% improvement

2024-07-01 Thread Oliver Sang
hi, Christoph Hellwig, On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 09:54:05PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 10:35:38AM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote: > > > > I failed to apply patch in your previous reply to 1122c0c1cc or current tip > > of axboe-block/for-next: > >

Re: [axboe-block:for-next] [block] 1122c0c1cc: aim7.jobs-per-min 22.6% improvement

2024-06-26 Thread Oliver Sang
hi, Christoph Hellwig, On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 08:39:50PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 10:10:49AM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand this test request. as in title, we see a good > > improvement of aim7 for 1122c0c1cc, and we

Re: [axboe-block:for-next] [block] bd4a633b6f: fsmark.files_per_sec -64.5% regression

2024-06-25 Thread Oliver Sang
hi, Christoph Hellwig, On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:35:37AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > This is odd to say at least. Any chance you can check the value > of /sys/block/$DEVICE/queue/rotational for the relevant device before > and after this commit? And is this an ATA or NVMe SSD? > yeah, a

Re: [axboe-block:for-next] [block] 1122c0c1cc: aim7.jobs-per-min 22.6% improvement

2024-06-25 Thread Oliver Sang
hi, Christoph Hellwig, On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 01:57:35AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Oliver, > > can you test the patch below? It restores the previous behavior if > the device did not have a volatile write cache. I think at least > for raid0 and raid1 without bitmap the new behavior