From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20667C001DF for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2023 14:59:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232299AbjHAO7w (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2023 10:59:52 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37890 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232226AbjHAO7u (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2023 10:59:50 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81E38E4E for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2023 07:59:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 60B896732D; Tue, 1 Aug 2023 16:59:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 16:59:46 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Wang Yugui Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: btrfs write-bandwidth performance regression of 6.5-rc4/rc3 Message-ID: <20230801145946.GA11625@lst.de> References: <20230801173208.4F08.409509F4@e16-tech.com> <20230801100006.GA30042@lst.de> <20230801210400.F0DE.409509F4@e16-tech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230801210400.F0DE.409509F4@e16-tech.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 09:04:05PM +0800, Wang Yugui wrote: > good performance > drop 'btrfs: submit IO synchronously for fast checksum implementations' too > 6.4.0 + patches until ' btrfs: use SECTOR_SHIFT to convert LBA to physical offset' > > but I have tested 6.1.y with a patch almost same as > 'btrfs: submit IO synchronously for fast checksum implementations' > for over 20+ times, no performance regression found. Can you try a git-revert of 140fb1f734736a on the latest tree (which should work cleanly) for an additional data point?