Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:05:51 -0500 | From | "J. Bruce Fields" <> | Subject | Re: [LKP] [fs/locks] fd7732e033: stress-ng.eventfd.ops 21.9% improvement |
| |
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 05:14:29PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > FYI, we noticed a 21.9% improvement of stress-ng.eventfd.ops due to commit:
So, doesn't sound like a problem, but just looking into it out of curiosity.....
I love that you do this, but these reports can be hard to figure out sometimes. The graphs especially could use better labeling.
> commit: fd7732e033e30b3a586923b57e338c859e17858a ("fs/locks: create a tree of dependent requests.") > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jlayton/linux.git locks-next > > in testcase: stress-ng > on test machine: 88 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v4 @ 2.20GHz with 64G memory > with following parameters: > > nr_threads: 100% > disk: 1HDD > testtime: 1s > class: filesystem > ucode: 0xb00002e > cpufreq_governor: performance
Looking at the man page for stress-ng, it doesn't say much about what it actually does. It does say not to use stress-ng as a benchmark. I can't tell if it does file locking--the man pages does document some options which ask for locking (--flock, --locka, --lockf) but I don't see any evidence in the yaml file or elsewhere that those options are in use?
These graphs could really use units on the axes. Also:
> stress-ng.fcntl.ops > > 120000 +-+----------------------------------------------------------------+ > O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O | > 110000 +-O O O O O O O | > 100000 +-+ | > | | > 90000 +-+ | > 80000 +-+ | > | | > 70000 +-+ | > 60000 +-+ | > | | > 50000 +-+ | > 40000 +-+ | > |. .+.+..+.+. .+.+..+.+. .+.+.+..+. .+. .+.. .+. .+. .+.| > 30000 +-+----------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > stress-ng.fcntl.ops_per_sec > > 120000 +-+----------------------------------------------------------------+ > O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O | > 110000 +-O O O O O O O | > 100000 +-+ | > | | > 90000 +-+ | > 80000 +-+ | > | | > 70000 +-+ | > 60000 +-+ | > | | > 50000 +-+ | > 40000 +-+ | > |. .+.+..+.+. .+.+..+.+. .+.+.+..+. .+. .+.. .+. .+. .+.| > 30000 +-+----------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > [*] bisect-good sample > [O] bisect-bad sample
I see O's, not but any *'s. And what are the +'s?
--b.
| |