linux-kernel - Re: [axboe-block:for-next] [block] bd4a633b6f: fsmark.files_per

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]

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 08:18:04 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev, lkp@...el.com,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
	linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com,
	nbd@...er.debian.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	ying.huang@...el.com, feng.tang@...el.com, fengwei.yin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [axboe-block:for-next] [block]  bd4a633b6f:
 fsmark.files_per_sec -64.5% regression

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!