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 lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (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 AE7CFC27C4F for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 03:41:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=bombadil.20210309 header.b=v38aUgEx; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4W86tP0mXkz30Wd for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 13:41:01 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=bombadil.20210309 header.b=v38aUgEx; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org (client-ip=2607:7c80:54:3::133; helo=bombadil.infradead.org; envelope-from=batv+6ef32e7df62b9ce2c558+7612+infradead.org+hch@bombadil.srs.infradead.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4W86sS3y3hz30V7 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 13:40:08 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=q35hat2STPhlr4DAn4+ABXn/NxJWaK5wgb5DlM6xpCg=; b=v38aUgExch/0roE+EfRJ2Glql8 NJM5fN+YEIB1TYrzijSpWBKOBPz4ePJWBmxAeIq8Vy0dgCM+B8D7e2Uu/8N8Um6Vr/QojQ2rgIn5c kZ0Qn4LEY3fOdOmfyKwMWEDOh9Ymv1GdTyRuFBajkXiPOidtU70du4sEE9xKuUof+3qQcWAWRaj21 Q277QHf25k5Hs4ZG2a3z7KhsZxdHv16NmcJJI6IIXWv8/dTL6K+es5s2mnReHc51vjem7WfsNQ2Oh GFZANqqhPdUBbop3nLGkV+BdHz5dumNmTIDB8b0TUPLkhRAW/U3MN14I64qofM3LTvdEoRKFoAPJn ZHT0K0YA==; 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 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-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: nvdimm@lists.linux.dev, Ulf Hansson , feng.tang@intel.com, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Christoph Hellwig , drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, lkp@intel.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , 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-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, Damien Le Moal , Hannes Reinecke , Jens Axboe , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, fengwei.yin@intel.com, oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" 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!