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 bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F4CBC27C4F for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 03:39:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=q35hat2STPhlr4DAn4+ABXn/NxJWaK5wgb5DlM6xpCg=; b=rjcnqpFPqCHjFi/Q/uKFTOjPT8 f/3pYh1CkhkyZm34p5SdJ3nYju1fE+irIzetedXF6r2HiSrQDypkMKqsvecQBVKf+DrQp/azlX3wx P/npqnrSDgj6xqpKanoV4wSVv5XocGQ/XEqVSpu7ZfbTAkIcKxYrsABTqOqioYkxWEquhRAkoSqh/ lFDXmshX6TMAQCSNHKw10Ze2N9gR+I+u1ajXV4xCgS9gEUV/wcGX48JFtJzFTNSxNr6XmHTIq4fr/ OhaMnkz8lH5/58b6f8ddBySwV8umC41WWsLXOYJsACaGN6eACN5WbQqje/rPyj4ywzdNhymtN1ltN aADdg+Yw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sMJVi-00000005EdQ-1nhO; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 03:39:54 +0000 Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sMJVe-00000005Ecx-3HCZ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 03:39:50 +0000 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:39:50 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Oliver Sang Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Christoph Hellwig , oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com, Jens Axboe , Ulf Hansson , Damien Le Moal , Hannes Reinecke , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, nbd@other.debian.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, nvdimm@lists.linux.dev, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com, feng.tang@intel.com, fengwei.yin@intel.com Subject: Re: [axboe-block:for-next] [block] 1122c0c1cc: aim7.jobs-per-min 22.6% improvement Message-ID: References: <202406250948.e0044f1d-oliver.sang@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: linux-um@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-um" Errors-To: linux-um-bounces+linux-um=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org 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 should send them, or at least just handle them in md. > do you mean this improvement is not expected or exposes some problems instead? > then by below patch, should the performance back to the level of parent of > 1122c0c1cc? > > sure! it's our great pleasure to test your patches. I noticed there are > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240625110603.50885-2-hch@lst.de/ > which includes "[PATCH 1/7] md: set md-specific flags for all queue limits" > [2] > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240625145955.115252-2-hch@lst.de/ > which includes "[PATCH 1/8] md: set md-specific flags for all queue limits" > > which one you suggest us to test? > do we only need to apply the first patch "md: set md-specific flags for all queue limits" > upon 1122c0c1cc? > then is the expectation the performance back to parent of 1122c0c1cc? Either just the patch in reply or the entire [2] series would be fine. Thanks!