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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57accb2a-828d-c532-d964-130a63faebe5@acm.org>
Date:   Sun, 24 Jul 2022 18:48:44 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Wang You <wangyoua@...ontech.com>
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, fio@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de,
        jaegeuk@...nel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ming.lei@...hat.com,
        wangxiaohua@...ontech.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] block/mq-deadline: Prioritize first request

On 7/23/22 03:59, Wang You wrote:
> Also, can I ask? If using fio or other tools, how should testing be done to get
> more accurate and convincing data? Such as the perfectly sequential and random I/O
> performance you mentioned above (fio's multi-threaded test does result in neither
> perfectly sequential nor perfectly random, but single thread dispatch is too slow,
> and cannot play the merge and sorting ability of elv).

I'm not sure that there is agreement about for which data patterns to 
measure performance to conclude that certain code changes improve 
performance of an I/O scheduler.

Thanks,

Bart.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ