Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Mar 2023 08:34:23 +0100 | Subject | Re: [Regression] Bug 216961 - Severe IO scheduling starvation issues with btrfs | From | "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <> |
| |
On 28.02.23 20:40, David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 06:17:58AM +0100, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: >> On 16.02.23 23:39, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 12:43 PM Thorsten Leemhuis >>> <regressions@leemhuis.info> wrote: >>>> >>>> I might be missing something, but it looks like the report was ignored. >>>> Is there a reason for that? >>> Mostly just being blind. >> Happens. >> >>> I've responded to the BZ, I'll investigate >>> through the BZ. > According to the bug it's a problem in BFQ.
Yeah, I noticed yesterday, after I looked into the issue again, as it looked stalled. But as I already wrote in a comment in the ticket yesterday:
Did anyone tell the bfq developers about this?
Doesn't look like it. Adding them to the list of recipients them now, even if they might know about it. If not:
Paolo, Jens, there seems to be a regression in BFQ likely introduced between 5.19 and 6.0 that people apparently notice often with Btrfs. For details see: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216961
Josef apparently has seen report about this as well where switching to another io scheduler helped: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216961#c8
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat) -- Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking: https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.
#regzbot title: bfq: severe IO scheduling starvation issues with btrfs
| |