linux-kernel - [REGRESSION] fio 4k randread: ~1–3.5% IOPS regression on linux-next (6.19.0-rc1-next-20251219) vs RHEL9 5.14 on PERC H740P

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260117024413.484508-2-bojanalahithashri@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 21:44:07 -0500
From: Hithashree Bojanala <bojanalahithashri@...il.com>
To: linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Cc: bojanala hithashri <bojanalahithashri@...il.com>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [REGRESSION] fio 4k randread: ~1–3.5% IOPS regression on linux-next (6.19.0-rc1-next-20251219) vs RHEL9 5.14 on PERC H740P

From: bojanala hithashri <bojanalahithashri@...il.com> 


Hello,

I am reporting a small but consistent block I/O performance regression
observed when running 4k random reads across queue depths on a hardware
RAID device.

The regression appears when comparing a RHEL9 downstream kernel against
a linux-next snapshot.

System / Hardware
-----------------
CPU:   
      Model: Intel Xeon Gold 6130 @ 2.10GHz
      Architecture: x86_64
      Sockets: 2
      Cores per socket: 16
      Threads per core: 2
      NUMA nodes: 2
Memory: 
      Total: 187 GB
      NUMA nodes: 2
      Node 0: ~94 GB
      Node 1: ~97 GB
      Swap: 4 GB (unused during test)

Storage controller:
  Dell PERC H740P (hardware RAID)

Block device:
  /dev/sdh

lsblk output:
  NAME MODEL           SIZE ROTA TRAN SCHED
  sdh  PERC H740P Adp  1.6T    1      mq-deadline

Active scheduler:
  /sys/block/sdh/queue/scheduler
    none [mq-deadline] kyber bfq

Kernels Tested
--------------
Baseline (downstream):
  5.14.0-427.13.1.el9_4.x86_64

Test (upstream integration tree):
  6.19.0-rc1-next-20251219

Workload / Reproducer
---------------------
fio version: 3.35
Raw block device, direct I/O, libaio, single job, long runtime (300s)

Command used:

for depth in 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048; do
  fio --rw=randread \
      --bs=4096 \
      --name=randread-$depth \
      --filename=/dev/sdh \
      --ioengine=libaio \
      --numjobs=1 --thread \
      --norandommap \
      --runtime=300 \
      --direct=1 \
      --iodepth=$depth \
      --scramble_buffers=1 \
      --offset=0 \
      --size=100g
done

Observed Behavior
-----------------
Across all queue depths tested, the linux-next kernel shows:

- ~1–3.5% lower IOPS
- Corresponding bandwidth reduction
- ~1–3.6% higher average completion latency
- Slightly worse p99 / p99.9 latency

The throughput saturation point remains unchanged
(around iodepth ≈ 128), suggesting the regression is
related to service/dispatch efficiency rather than a
change in device limits.

Example Data Points
-------------------
- iodepth=32:
    old: 554 IOPS → new: 535 IOPS  (~-3.4%)
    avg clat: 57.7 ms → 59.8 ms

- iodepth=64:
    old: 608 IOPS → new: 588 IOPS  (~-3.3%)
    avg clat: 105 ms → 109 ms

- iodepth=128:
    old: 648 IOPS → new: 640 IOPS (~-1.2%)

This behavior is consistent across multiple runs.

Notes
-----
I understand this comparison spans a downstream RHEL kernel
and a linux-next snapshot. I wanted to report this early
because the regression is consistent and may relate to recent
blk-mq or mq-deadline changes affecting rotational / hardware
RAID devices.

I am happy to:
- Re-test on a specific mainline release (e.g. v6.18 or v6.19-rc)
- Compare schedulers (mq-deadline vs none / bfq)
- Provide additional instrumentation (iostat, perf, bpf)
- Assist with bisection if a suspect window is identified

Please let me know how you would like me to proceed.

Thanks,
Hithashree