Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 May 2022 04:20:18 +0100 | Subject | Re: squashfs performance regression and readahea | From | Phillip Lougher <> |
| |
On 10/05/2022 03:35, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 02:11:41AM +0100, Phillip Lougher wrote: >> On 09/05/2022 14:21, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 08:43:45PM +0800, Xiongwei Song wrote: >>>> Hi Hsin-Yi and Matthew, >>>> >>>> With the patch from the attachment on linux 5.10, ran the command as I >>>> mentioned earlier, >>>> got the results below: >>>> 1:40.65 (1m + 40.65s) >>>> 1:10.12 >>>> 1:11.10 >>>> 1:11.47 >>>> 1:11.59 >>>> 1:11.94 >>>> 1:11.86 >>>> 1:12.04 >>>> 1:12.21 >>>> 1:12.06 >>>> >>>> The performance has improved obviously, but compared to linux 4.18, the >>>> performance is not so good. >>>> >>>> Moreover, I wanted to test on linux 5.18. But I think I should revert >>>> 9eec1d897139 ("squashfs: provide backing_dev_info in order to disable >>>> read-ahead"), >>>> right? Otherwise, the patch doesn't work? >>> >>> I've never seen patch 9eec1d897139 before. If you're going to point >>> out bugs in my code, at least have the decency to cc me on it. It >>> should never have gone in, and should be reverted so the problem can >>> be fixed properly. >> >> You are not in charge of what patches goes into Squashfs, that is my >> perogative as maintainer of Squashfs. > > I think you mean 'prerogative'. And, no, your filesystem is not your > little fiefdom, it's part of a collaborative effort. >
This isn't a spelling contest, and if that's the best you can do you have already failed.
Be carefull here also, I have been maintainer of Squashfs for 20 years, and was kernel maintainer for both Ubuntu and Redhat for 10 years, and so I am experienced member of the community.
You reply is bordering on offensive and arrogant, especially considering it is unwarranted. I did not set out to offend you, and I don't appreciate it.
About 8 years ago I decided to refrain from active involvement in the kernel community, because I decided the level of discourse was disgusting, and I had enough of it.
I poped up now to defend my approval of the Huawei patch. I am *quite* happy not to have any more involvement until necessary.
So having said what I want to say, I will leave it at that. You have just proved why I have minimised my involvement.
No doubt you'll throw your toys out the pram, but, I'm no longer listening so don't bother.
>> That patch (by Huawei) fixes the performance regression in Squashfs >> by disabling readahead, and it is good workaround until something >> better. > > You *didn't even report the problem to me*. How can it be fixed if I'm > not aware of it? >
There was a email discussion last year, which I responded to, and got ignored. I will find it out tomorrow, perhaps. But I will probably not bother, because life is too short.
Cheers
Phillip
| |