* Re: squashfs performance regression and readahea [not found] ` <YnnPYD+VtQB6hlnL@casper.infradead.org> @ 2022-05-10 3:20 ` Phillip Lougher 2022-05-10 3:41 ` Phillip Lougher 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Phillip Lougher @ 2022-05-10 3:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Xiongwei Song, Zheng Liang, Zhang Yi, Hou Tao, Miao Xie, Andrew Morton, Linus Torvalds, Hsin-Yi Wang, Song, Xiongwei, linux-mm, squashfs-devel, open list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: squashfs performance regression and readahea 2022-05-10 3:20 ` squashfs performance regression and readahea Phillip Lougher @ 2022-05-10 3:41 ` Phillip Lougher 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Phillip Lougher @ 2022-05-10 3:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Xiongwei Song, Zheng Liang, Zhang Yi, Hou Tao, Miao Xie, Andrew Morton, Linus Torvalds, Hsin-Yi Wang, Song, Xiongwei, linux-mm, squashfs-devel, open list On 10/05/2022 04:20, Phillip Lougher wrote: > 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? Despite having been insulted, I have done your homework for you. This is where the problem was raised last year, with you directly emailed. https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAJMQK-g9G6KQmH-V=BRGX0swZji9Wxe_2c7ht-MMAapdFy2pXw@mail.gmail.com/T/ >> > > 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. > Afterwards you started a thread on "Readahead for compressed data", which I responded to. https://lore.kernel.org/all/YXHK5HrQpJu9oy8w@casper.infradead.org/T/ > Cheers > > Phillip ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-05-10 3:44 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <PH0PR11MB519282C2834C7BB7B5431F34ECC79@PH0PR11MB5192.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> [not found] ` <Ynfzh2ifG85MZEoN@casper.infradead.org> [not found] ` <CAJMQK-jNYoJVqsri4REV=E3bG8AS7T82HrVSAUPzbUiWask01A@mail.gmail.com> [not found] ` <CAJMQK-i3OQxcG7=LzTG4k70BP0j6PstWw0C45xcEi6iVLn_2ag@mail.gmail.com> [not found] ` <CAEVVKH-m+3+xJMbM1vRM3d=AaPSv2xg4Qx8_WPw_29JByONS8A@mail.gmail.com> [not found] ` <YnkVaGB74xqWJqdG@casper.infradead.org> [not found] ` <13af40a9-6b60-6875-8326-0827e34182d5@squashfs.org.uk> [not found] ` <YnnPYD+VtQB6hlnL@casper.infradead.org> 2022-05-10 3:20 ` squashfs performance regression and readahea Phillip Lougher 2022-05-10 3:41 ` Phillip Lougher
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).