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: <81d9e019-b730-221e-a8c0-f72a8422a2ec@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:34:39 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, <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 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?

 From checking differences between those kernels, I don't see anything 
directly relevant in sbitmap support or in the megaraid sas driver.

Thanks,
John