Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Aug 2016 11:52:51 -0700 | From | Jaegeuk Kim <> | Subject | Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression |
| |
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:44:20AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote: > Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> writes: > > > Hi Huang, > > > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote: > >> Hi, Jaegeuk, > >> > >> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > I checked the comparison result below and found this is a regression for > >> > fsmark.files_per_sec, not fsmark.app_overhead. > >> > > >> > Best Regards, > >> > Huang, Ying > >> > > >> > kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> writes: > >> > > >> >> FYI, we noticed a -36.3% regression of fsmark.files_per_sec due to commit: > >> >> > >> >> commit ec795418c41850056feb956534edf059dc1155d4 ("f2fs: use percpu_rw_semaphore") > >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jaegeuk/f2fs.git dev-test > >> > >> I found this has been merged by upstream. Do you have some plan to fix > >> it? Or you think the test itself has some problem? > > > > Sorry, too busy to take a look at this. > > The patch implements percpu_rw_semaphore which is intended to enhance FS > > scalability. Since I couldn't see any big regression in my test cases, could you > > check any debugging options which may give some overheads? > > The kernel config related with F2FS is as follow in our test, > > CONFIG_F2FS_FS=m > CONFIG_F2FS_STAT_FS=y > CONFIG_F2FS_FS_XATTR=y > CONFIG_F2FS_FS_POSIX_ACL=y > # CONFIG_F2FS_FS_SECURITY is not set > # CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS is not set > # CONFIG_F2FS_FS_ENCRYPTION is not set > # CONFIG_F2FS_IO_TRACE is not set > # CONFIG_F2FS_FAULT_INJECTION is not set > > What do you think we need to change? Or do you mean some other > debugging options? Anyway, you can check our kernel config attached. > > > Let me recheck this with whole my tests. > > Maybe you can try our kernel config? Or if our kernel config is not > reasonable, can you help us to revise it? The full kernel config we > used is attached with the email.
I could reproduce the fsmark regression in my machine and confirm there is another small regression as well. I'll revert this patch. Thank you.
[lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression
In terms of the above regression, I could check that _reproduce_ procedure includes mounting filesystem only. Is that correct?
Thanks,
> > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying > > > Thanks, > > > >> > >> We have another 2 regressions > >> > >> - [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression > >> - [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression > >> > >> they are merged by upstream now too. So same questions for them too. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Huang, Ying > >> > >> >> in testcase: fsmark > >> >> on test machine: 72 threads Haswell-EP with 128G memory > >> >> with following parameters: > >> > cpufreq_governor=performance/disk=1SSD/filesize=8K/fs=f2fs/iterations=8/nr_directories=16d/nr_files_per_directory=256fpd/nr_threads=4/sync_method=fsyncBeforeClose/test_size=72G > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Disclaimer: > >> >> Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided > >> >> for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software > >> >> design or configuration may affect actual performance. > >> >> >
| |