Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4+bounces-588-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
From: bugzilla-daemon@kernel.org
To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [Bug 217965] ext4(?) regression since 6.5.0 on sata hdd
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2024 04:44:08 +0000
Message-ID: <bug-217965-13602-QP94tPPNpk@https.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-217965-13602@https.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
References: <bug-217965-13602@https.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D217965

--- Comment #59 from Ojaswin Mujoo (ojaswin.mujoo@ibm.com) ---
Hi Matthew,

Thanks for testing out the patch and for sharing the results with and witho=
ut
CR_BEST_AVAIL_LEN commented. Would it be possible for you to add perf probe=
s as
mentioned in comment 36 and share the result. That'd be helpful in
understanding why CR_BEST_AVAIL_LEN is getting stuck. Basically, I am
interested in seeing how the scan is happening in CR_GOAL_LEN_FAST vs
CR_BEST_AVAIL_LEN.

[1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D217965#c36

Also, another thing I'd request you to try is, instead of commenting out the
code can you run:

$ echo "0" > /sys/fs/ext4/<dev>/mb_best_avail_max_trim_order

and rerun the test. This disables most of the code but keeps some of the
initial logic. Might help zero down if the issue is in the initial logic or=
 the
disabled code.

Thanks again,
ojaswin

--=20
You may reply to this email to add a comment.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.=