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 BC05EC3064D for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:55:08 +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=uzcGPgco; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4W8mTQ01Ljz30WX for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:55:06 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org 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+b68173646e9cfe1398de+7613+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 4W8mSV08KXz30Ty for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:54:14 +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=/fzE2yWElnzU7XRficmyE9tfka6WnF3hLS24PJakxl4=; b=uzcGPgconVlUhJahqA4o0y4rP2 YDkQfdW0m0w2u8N8BRaxbwBTF1twTy53aPn4xBPj/AfBrb0WxTzWJH8wD6oR43WzK3V70db4qXtWY 0IIZI+2mDcUbXHX9Anl5SaO8PZqQtBzUCFGUjAdJ7ExnkxJgGk1kclJpDyt1NPlhJH6k1SD2KJv1r Y/aWT38dOOUqqw6WO2aC6zoYnYWj+859j2ETzBrnZoTEbtU0f3blIKoRcb5DyUh8Hm74KMCv5zkZg gzrN7RVyue7JLzZcBns6ISX0k4yPom7ZauQBJlbkxj+mZ51Z3qG2KMut3g2uFWJoxlvZFyPWvc2cp 37dKQmlg==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sMh93-00000009D8d-4Br2; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:54:06 +0000 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:54:05 -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, 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 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 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.