From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:42648 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754441AbcJPHPB (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Oct 2016 03:15:01 -0400 Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:14:58 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fstests: run xfs_io as multi threaded process Message-ID: <20161016071458.GA17675@infradead.org> References: <1476477810-17478-1-git-send-email-amir73il@gmail.com> <1476477810-17478-2-git-send-email-amir73il@gmail.com> <20161015091126.GA9631@infradead.org> <20161015170441.GA23090@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , eguan@redhat.com, fstests List-ID: On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 11:59:22PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > So far so good, but then I looked closer at its sister test > generic/132, which is > an even more CPU intensive test, also of many small reads and writes > from few xfs_io runs. > This is not a 'quick' group test. > Here the runtime difference was significant 17sec without -M and 20sec > with -M flag. > > So without looking much closer into other non quick tests, I think > that perhaps the > best value option is to turn on -M flag for all the quick tests. > > What do you think? Sounds like a good idea, now how do we find out in the xfs_io helper if it's a quick test?