On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 01:00:16PM -0600, JAEHOON KIM wrote: > On 2/19/2026 4:27 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > Hi Jaehoon, > > Following the call earlier this week I ran a single fio job to get a > > clearer picture of: > > 1. The QEMU 10.0.0 regression that prompted you to optimize AioContext > > polling. > > 2. How the poll-weight parameter affects IOPS. > > > > run rw bs numjobs iothreads iops diff > > v9.2.0 randread 8k 1 1 174944 3.6% > > v10.0.0 randread 8k 1 1 174285 3.2% > > baseline randread 8k 1 1 168908 0.0% > > w2 randread 8k 1 1 163718 -3.1% > > w3 randread 8k 1 1 165805 -1.8% > > w4 randread 8k 1 1 167388 -0.9% > > > > This time I only ran randread bs=8k iodepth=8 numjobs=1 with a single > > IOThread. > > > > Observations: > > > > - There might be an IOPS regression between v10.0.0 and the baseline > > (9ad7f544c696) that your patches apply on top of. This is different > > from the CPU utilization regression that you found in v9.2.0 -> > > v10.0.0. I will bisect it.
I reran v10.0.0, v10.1.0, and the baseline to check for a regression. The fio results came back not showing a regression. It's weird that the results I previously posted showed a change, but there doesn't seem to be a reproducible issue after all. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
