Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:30:48 -0700 | From | Jaegeuk Kim <> | Subject | Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression |
| |
Hello,
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:13:34AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > Hi Jaegeuk, > > > > >> > - [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression > > > >> > > > > >> > The disk is 4 12G ram disk, and setup RAID0 on them via mdadm. The > > > >> > steps for aim7 is, > > > >> > > > > >> > cat > workfile <<EOF > > > >> > FILESIZE: 1M > > > >> > POOLSIZE: 10M > > > >> > 10 sync_disk_rw > > > >> > EOF > > > >> > > > > >> > ( > > > >> > echo $HOSTNAME > > > >> > echo sync_disk_rw > > > >> > > > > >> > echo 1 > > > >> > echo 600 > > > >> > echo 2 > > > >> > echo 600 > > > >> > echo 1 > > > >> > ) | ./multitask -t & > > > >> > > > >> Any update on these 2 regressions? Is the information is enough for you > > > >> to reproduce? > > > > > > > > Sorry, I've had no time to dig this due to business travel now. > > > > I'll check that when back to US. > > > > > > Any update? > > > > Sorry, how can I get multitask binary? > > It's part of aim7, which can be downloaded here: > > http://nchc.dl.sourceforge.net/project/aimbench/aim-suite7/Initial%20release/s7110.tar.Z
Thank you for the codes.
I've run this workload on the latest f2fs and compared performance having without the reported patch. (1TB nvme SSD, 16 cores, 16GB DRAM) Interestingly, I could find slight performance improvement rather than regression. :( Not sure how to reproduce this.
Thanks,
| |