All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>,
	David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
	lkp@01.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp-robot] [mm] 9092c71bb7: blogbench.write_score -12.3% regression
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 12:23:32 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180802162330.bs3irlc5hqq75ukp@destiny> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87tvod8g8k.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>

On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 01:55:23PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi, Chris,
> >
> > Chris Mason <clm@fb.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 19 Jun 2018, at 23:51, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >>>>> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi, Josef,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do you have time to take a look at the regression?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> writes:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Greeting,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> FYI, we noticed a -12.3% regression of blogbench.write_score and
> >>>>>>> a +9.6% improvement
> >>>>>>> of blogbench.read_score due to commit:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> commit: 9092c71bb724dba2ecba849eae69e5c9d39bd3d2 ("mm: use
> >>>>>>> sc->priority for slab shrink targets")
> >>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
> >>>>>>> master
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> in testcase: blogbench
> >>>>>>> on test machine: 16 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU D-1541 @
> >>>>>>> 2.10GHz with 8G memory
> >>>>>>> with following parameters:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 	disk: 1SSD
> >>>>>>> 	fs: btrfs
> >>>>>>> 	cpufreq_governor: performance
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> test-description: Blogbench is a portable filesystem benchmark
> >>>>>>> that tries to reproduce the load of a real-world busy file
> >>>>>>> server.
> >>>>>>> test-url:
> >>
> >> I'm surprised, this patch is a big win in production here at FB.  I'll
> >> have to reproduce these results to better understand what is going on.
> >> My first guess is that since we have fewer inodes in slab, we're
> >> reading more inodes from disk in order to do the writes.
> >>
> >> But that should also make our read scores lower.
> >
> > Any update on this?
> 
> Ping.
> 

I can't reproduce this, and what's more it appears that blogbench doesn't use
much memory at all.  I have the slab shrinking tracepoints on and we never go
into this code at all, so I'm pretty sure these results are bogus.  How are you
running blogbench?  I'm doing blogbench -d /whatever, if I need to be doing
something else let me know.  But from what I can tell this thing uses less than
100m of memory, and on an 8gig of ram box we're never going to trip over this
code.  Thanks,

Josef

  reply	other threads:[~2018-08-02 18:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-08  1:57 [lkp-robot] [mm] 9092c71bb7: blogbench.write_score -12.3% regression kernel test robot
2018-05-29  7:30 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2018-05-29  7:30   ` Huang, Ying
2018-06-05  4:58   ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2018-06-05  4:58     ` Huang, Ying
2018-06-14  1:37     ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2018-06-14  1:37       ` Huang, Ying
2018-06-20  3:51       ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2018-06-20  3:51         ` Huang, Ying
2018-06-20 12:38         ` [LKP] " Chris Mason
2018-06-20 12:38           ` Chris Mason
2018-06-21  0:38           ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2018-06-21  0:38             ` Huang, Ying
2018-07-13  1:55           ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2018-07-13  1:55             ` Huang, Ying
2018-08-02  5:55             ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2018-08-02  5:55               ` Huang, Ying
2018-08-02 16:23               ` Josef Bacik [this message]
2018-08-03  8:22                 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2018-08-03  8:22                   ` Huang, Ying
2018-08-29  6:55                   ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2018-08-29  6:55                     ` Huang, Ying

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180802162330.bs3irlc5hqq75ukp@destiny \
    --to=josef@toxicpanda.com \
    --cc=clm@fb.com \
    --cc=dsterba@suse.com \
    --cc=jbacik@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@01.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.