On 2021/8/28 10:19, Bart Van Assche wrote:

On 8/27/21 6:45 PM, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:

quoted

On 2021/8/27 11:13, Jens Axboe wrote:

quoted

On 8/26/21 8:48 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:

quoted

With the patch series that is available at
https://github.com/bvanassche/linux/tree/block-for-next the same test reports
1090 K IOPS or only 1% below the v5.11 result. I will post that series on the
linux-block mailing list after I have finished testing that series.

OK sounds good. I do think we should just do the revert at this point,
any real fix is going to end up being bigger than I'd like at this
point. Then we can re-introduce the feature once we're happy with the
results.

Yes, It's already rc7 and it's no longer good for big changes. Revert is the
best solution, and apply my patch is a compromise solution.

Please take a look at the patch series that is available at
https://github.com/bvanassche/linux/tree/block-for-next. Performance for
that patch series is significantly better than with your patch.

Yes, this patch is better than mine. However, Jens prefers to avoid the risk of
functional stability in v5.14. v5.15 doesn't need my patch or revert.

I'll test your patch this afternoon. I don't have the environment yet.

Thanks,

Bart.
.