Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:41:38 -0700 | From | Jaegeuk Kim <> | Subject | Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression |
| |
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:50:02AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> writes: > > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > >> Hi, Jaegeuk, > >> > >> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes: > >> > >> > Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> writes: > >> > > >> >> 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. > >> > > >> > I think the difference lies on disk used. The ramdisk is used in the > >> > original test, but it appears that your memory is too small to setup the > >> > RAM disk for test. So it may be impossible for you to reproduce the > >> > test unless you can find more memory :) > >> > > >> > But we can help you to root cause the issue. What additional data do > >> > you want? perf-profile data before and after the patch? > >> > >> Any update to this regression? > > > > Sorry, no. But meanwhile, I've purchased more DRAMs. :) > > Now I'm with 128GB DRAM. I can configure 64GB as pmem. > > Is it worth to try the test again? > > I think you are the decision maker for this. You can judge whether the > test is reasonable. And we can adjust our test accordingly. > > BTW: For this test, we use brd ram disk and raid to test.
Okay, let me try this again. Thanks,
> > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying
| |