On 6/13/26 05:03, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 6/12/26 5:05 AM, Chao Yu wrote: >> Actually, I'm worry about whether there is potential performance regression >> caused by enabling this by default, also a little bit concern about the >> affection for PC|laptop scenario which is used by individual user. > > According to Gemini F2FS is primarily used on PC's and laptops to > increase random write IOPS for rotating media (hard disks). I don't > expect the performance impact of this patch series to be measurable for > rotating media because the time required to queue and schedule work is > very small compared to the I/O completion time for these devices.
Hmm, I suspect there is potential non rotating media user, scheduling can be the bottleneck there, maybe. > > I ran a new set of measurements on a UFS 4 test setup with zoned > storage (ZUFS). On that test setup I see that the variation between test > runs is much larger than the variation in test results with or without > this patch series. In other words, I don't think that we have to worry > about the performance impact of this patch series. Well, it needs to be verified for each kernel version you backported, on ZUFS or non ZUFS, right? I guess Randall or Leo may have time to assist to setup the performance test. :) Thanks, > > Bart. _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
