Re: [axboe-block:for-next] [block] bd4a633b6f: fsmark.files_per_sec -64.5% regression

Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> Wed, 26 Jun 2024 08:18:04 +0200
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.drbd-dev,dev.linux.lists.dm-devel,dev.linux.lists.nvdimm,dev.linux.lists.oe-lkp,dev.linux.lists.virtualization,org.infradead.lists.linux-mtd,org.infradead.lists.linux-nvme,org.infradead.lists.linux-um,org.kernel.vger.ceph-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-bcache,org.kernel.vger.linux-block,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-m68k,org.kernel.vger.linux-mmc,org.kernel.vger.linux-raid,org.kernel.vger.linux-s390,org.kernel.vger.linux-scsi,org.ozlabs.lists.linuxppc-dev,org.xenproject.lists.xen-devel
Message-ID <[email protected]> 
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 02:11:11PM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote:
> hi, Christoph Hellwig,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:35:37AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This is odd to say at least.  Any chance you can check the value
> > of /sys/block/$DEVICE/queue/rotational for the relevant device before
> > and after this commit?  And is this an ATA or NVMe SSD?
> > 
> 
> yeah, as Niklas mentioned, it's an ATA SSD.
> 
> I checked the /sys/block/$DEVICE/queue/rotational before and after this commit,
> both show '0'. not sure if this is expected.
> 
> anyway, I noticed you send a patch [1]
> 
> so I applied this patch upon bd4a633b6f, and found the performance restored.

Thanks for testing!