From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.9]) by mail19.linbit.com (LINBIT Mail Daemon) with ESMTP id 1D76C420657 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 10:22:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 16:22:19 +0800 From: Oliver Sang To: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [axboe-block:for-next] [block] 1122c0c1cc: aim7.jobs-per-min 22.6% improvement Message-ID: References: <202406250948.e0044f1d-oliver.sang@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: nvdimm@lists.linux.dev, Ulf Hansson , feng.tang@intel.com, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, lkp@intel.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, nbd@other.debian.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, Damien Le Moal , Hannes Reinecke , Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, fengwei.yin@intel.com, oliver.sang@intel.com, oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: "*Coordination* of development, patches, contributions -- *Questions* \(even to developers\) go to drbd-user, please." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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/for-next) Merge branch 'for-6.11/block' into for-next > > That already includes it. for the patch in your previous reply [1] the bot applied it automatically as: * 5c683739f6c2f patch in [1] * 0fc4bfab2cd45 (tag: next-20240625) Add linux-next specific files for 20240625 for patch set [2], the bot applied it as: * 6490f979767736 block: move dma_pad_mask into queue_limits * 278817f42e219b block: remove the fallback case in queue_dma_alignment * 81afb19d619a04 block: remove disk_update_readahead * 037d85402b8b83 block: conding style fixup for blk_queue_max_guaranteed_bio * 4fe67425ae31a8 block: convert features and flags to __bitwise types * e3c2d2ad4136f2 block: rename BLK_FLAG_MISALIGNED * 33ead159243d1c block: correctly report cache type * 6725109120e0ba md: set md-specific flags for all queue limits * e6d130064a02f5 Merge branch 'for-6.11/block' into for-next but both build failed with the error: - "ERROR: modpost: \"md_init_stacking_limits\" [drivers/md/raid456.ko] undefined!" - "ERROR: modpost: \"md_init_stacking_limits\" [drivers/md/raid1.ko] undefined!" - "ERROR: modpost: \"md_init_stacking_limits\" [drivers/md/raid0.ko] undefined!" - "ERROR: modpost: \"md_init_stacking_limits\" [drivers/md/raid10.ko] undefined!" since you mentioned the axboe-block/for-next branch has already includes the patch-set, I got a snapshot of the branch as below several days ago: * bc512ae8cb934 (axboe-block/for-next) Merge branch 'for-6.11/block' into for-next <----------- |\ | * 18048c1af7836 (axboe-block/for-6.11/block) loop: Fix a race between loop detach and loop open | * 63db4a1f795a1 block: Delete blk_queue_flag_test_and_set() * | e21d05740862c Merge branch 'for-6.11/block' into for-next |\| | * e269537e491da block: clean up the check in blkdev_iomap_begin() * | 9c6e1f8702d51 Merge branch 'for-6.11/block' into for-next |\| | * 69b6517687a4b block: use the right type for stub rq_integrity_vec() * | c1440ed442a58 Merge branch 'for-6.11/block' into for-next |\| | * e94b45d08b5d1 block: move dma_pad_mask into queue_limits <---------------- | * abfc9d810926d block: remove the fallback case in queue_dma_alignment | * 73781b3b81e76 block: remove disk_update_readahead | * 3302f6f090522 block: conding style fixup for blk_queue_max_guaranteed_bio | * fcf865e357f80 block: convert features and flags to __bitwise types | * ec9b1cf0b0ebf block: rename BLK_FEAT_MISALIGNED | * 78887d004fb2b block: correctly report cache type | * 573d5abf3df00 md: set md-specific flags for all queue limits <---------------- * | 72e9cd924fccc Merge branch 'for-6.11/block' into for-next |\| | * cf546dd289e0f block: change rq_integrity_vec to respect the iterator <------------- from below, it seems the patchset doesn't introduce any performance improvement but a regression now. is this expected? ========================================================================================= compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/fs/kconfig/load/md/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase: gcc-13/performance/4BRD_12G/xfs/x86_64-rhel-8.3/300/RAID0/debian-12-x86_64-20240206.cgz/lkp-csl-2sp3/sync_disk_rw/aim7 cf546dd289e0f6d2 573d5abf3df00c879fbd25774e4 e94b45d08b5d1c230c0f59c3eed bc512ae8cb934ac31470bc825fa ---------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- %stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev \ | \ | \ | \ 21493 -19.6% 17278 -19.2% 17371 -19.7% 17264 aim7.jobs-per-min [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZnqGf49cvy6W-xWf@infradead.org/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240625145955.115252-2-hch@lst.de/ > > > > > but it's ok to apply upon next: > > * 0fc4bfab2cd45 (tag: next-20240625) Add linux-next specific files for 20240625 > > > > I've already started the test based on this applyment. > > is the expectation that patch should not introduce performance change comparing > > to 0fc4bfab2cd45? > > > > or if this applyment is not ok, please just give me guidance. Thanks! > > The expectation is that the latest block branch (and thus linux-next) > doesn't see this performance change. >