linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] blk-mq: Reduce static requests memory footprint for shared sbitmap

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1217e922-8bd5-9c2c-b7b0-1b75fff9ee04@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 5 Oct 2021 10:23:14 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, kashyap.desai@...adcom.com
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ming.lei@...hat.com, hare@...e.de, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] blk-mq: Reduce static requests memory footprint
 for shared sbitmap

On 10/5/21 7:34 AM, John Garry wrote:
> On 05/10/2021 13:35, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> Baseline is 1b2d1439fc25 (block/for-next) Merge branch 'for-5.16/io_uring'
>>> into for-next
>> Let's get this queued up for testing, thanks John.
> 
> Cheers, appreciated
> 
> @Kashyap, You mentioned that when testing you saw a performance 
> regression from v5.11 -> v5.12 - any idea on that yet? Can you describe 
> the scenario, like IO scheduler and how many disks and the type? Does 
> disabling host_tagset_enable restore performance?

FWIW, I ran my usual peak testing on this and didn't observe any regressions.
Caveat being that a) no scheduler is involved, and b) no shared tags. But
at least that fast case/path is fine.

-- 
Jens Axboe