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

2024-07-02 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 04:22:19PM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote: > from below, it seems the patchset doesn't introduce any performance > improvement > but a regression now. is this expected? Not having the improvement at least alleviate my concerns about data integrity. I'm still curious where it co

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: > > c1440ed442a58 (axboe-block/

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

2024-06-26 Thread Christoph Hellwig
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: > c1440ed442a58 (axboe-block/for-next) Merge branch 'for-6.11/block' into > for-next That already includes it. > > but it's ok

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 didn't observe other i

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

2024-06-25 Thread Christoph Hellwig
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 didn't observe other issues for > this commit. The improvement suggests we are not sending cache flushes when we shoul

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

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

2024-06-25 Thread Christoph Hellwig
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 actually is correct and better, but it will need fixes for other modes. If the underlying devices di

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

2024-06-24 Thread kernel test robot
Hello, kernel test robot noticed a 22.6% improvement of aim7.jobs-per-min on: commit: 1122c0c1cc71f740fa4d5f14f239194e06a1d5e7 ("block: move cache control settings out of queue->flags") https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/axboe/linux-block.git for-next testcase: aim7 test machine: