Messages in this thread | | | From | "Huang\, Ying" <> | Subject | Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression | Date | Thu, 04 Aug 2016 13:36:13 -0700 |
| |
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> writes:
> 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?
Sorry, our test system failed to generate reproduce steps for aim7. We will implement it.
- [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
The disk is one 48G ram disk. The steps for aim7 is,
cat > workfile <<EOF FILESIZE: 1M POOLSIZE: 10M 10 disk_cp EOF
( echo $HOSTNAME echo disk_cp
echo 1 echo 3000 echo 2 echo 3000 echo 1 ) | ./multitask -t &
- [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 &
Best Regards, Huang, Ying
| |