I know this will be down voted but I've learned to be a bit skeptical of Axboe's monumental claims. There have been some unfair benchmarks posted in the past surrounding io_uring that were called out by people on the liburing repositories. Take these with a grain of salt - his results are notoriously very difficult to reproduce, even on identical hardware. Nevertheless, io_uring is certainly the better design and I'm…
Not disagreeing with you, but even if benchmarks are unfair, these reports are still a good illustration of progress. Unless there are some drawbacks to these optimizations, there should be no negative side-effects. AFAIK as I know, these changes shouldn't negatively impact tasks that are not making any use of these features. So, even if improvements are not directly proportional to what is being reported, they're st…
Historically the benchmarks have been crafted in a way to make them seem faster than their real-world and well-formed opponents (e.g. the io_uring vs epoll benchmark). One issue that was pointed out was that the io_uring benchmark eschewed proper error handling in order to avoid some branches, whereas the epoll benchmark properly error checked. This reduced the benchmark times considerably, though no correction was ever published after the fact.
This is why in the Github issue I mentioned in another comment there are some people understandably a bit annoyed. I don't choose to jump to conclusions about Axboe's intent, and my original comment wasn't meant to do so.