Re: [axboe-block:for-next] [block] 1122c0c1cc: aim7.jobs-per-min 22.6% improvement
- To: Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@intel.com>
- Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>, Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, 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
- From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:54:05 -0700
- Message-id: <[🔎] ZnzwbYSaIlT0SIEy@infradead.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] ZnzP+nUrk8+9bANK@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>
- References: <[🔎] 202406250948.e0044f1d-oliver.sang@intel.com> <[🔎] ZnqGf49cvy6W-xWf@infradead.org> <Znt4qTr/NdeIPyNp@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> <[🔎] ZnuNhkH26nZi8fz6@infradead.org> <[🔎] ZnzP+nUrk8+9bANK@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>
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.
Reply to: