* [LTP] [PATCH] dio: reduce the number of cycles
@ 2017-06-14 3:38 Li Wang
2017-06-14 11:16 ` Eryu Guan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Li Wang @ 2017-06-14 3:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
These two cases (dio29/30) takes a bit long time in dio test, but they're not stress
test, so I suggest reducing the number of cycles.
On my RHEL-7.3 (23G RAM, 24 CPU(s), x86_64) box, it takes almost 9 mins.
diotest06 1 TPASS : Read with Direct IO, Write without
diotest06 2 TPASS : Write with Direct IO, Read without
diotest06 3 TPASS : Read, Write with Direct IO
diotest06 0 TINFO : 3 testblocks 1000 iterations with 100 children completed
real 8m4.805s
user 71m36.722s
sys 8m51.649s
Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
---
runtest/dio | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/runtest/dio b/runtest/dio
index a26e001..185cd57 100644
--- a/runtest/dio
+++ b/runtest/dio
@@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ dio27 diotest6 -b 8192 -o 1024000 -i 1000 -v 100
dio28 diotest6 -b 8192 -o 1024000 -i 1000 -v 200
### Run the tests with more children
-dio29 diotest3 -b 65536 -n 100 -i 1000 -o 1024000
-dio30 diotest6 -b 65536 -n 100 -i 1000 -o 1024000
+dio29 diotest3 -b 65536 -n 100 -i 100 -o 1024000
+dio30 diotest6 -b 65536 -n 100 -i 100 -o 1024000
#
# RAW DEVICE TEST SECTION
# DEV1 and DEV2 should be exported prior to execution or
--
2.9.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH] dio: reduce the number of cycles
2017-06-14 3:38 [LTP] [PATCH] dio: reduce the number of cycles Li Wang
@ 2017-06-14 11:16 ` Eryu Guan
2017-06-14 13:49 ` Cyril Hrubis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Eryu Guan @ 2017-06-14 11:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:38:30AM +0800, Li Wang wrote:
> These two cases (dio29/30) takes a bit long time in dio test, but they're not stress
> test, so I suggest reducing the number of cycles.
>
> On my RHEL-7.3 (23G RAM, 24 CPU(s), x86_64) box, it takes almost 9 mins.
>
> diotest06 1 TPASS : Read with Direct IO, Write without
> diotest06 2 TPASS : Write with Direct IO, Read without
> diotest06 3 TPASS : Read, Write with Direct IO
> diotest06 0 TINFO : 3 testblocks 1000 iterations with 100 children completed
>
> real 8m4.805s
> user 71m36.722s
> sys 8m51.649s
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
I tested diotest30 with 100 iterations and it still could reproduce the
bug I was seeing on 4.10 kernel quite reliably (even if not 100%), so
Acked-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>
> ---
> runtest/dio | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/runtest/dio b/runtest/dio
> index a26e001..185cd57 100644
> --- a/runtest/dio
> +++ b/runtest/dio
> @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ dio27 diotest6 -b 8192 -o 1024000 -i 1000 -v 100
> dio28 diotest6 -b 8192 -o 1024000 -i 1000 -v 200
>
> ### Run the tests with more children
> -dio29 diotest3 -b 65536 -n 100 -i 1000 -o 1024000
> -dio30 diotest6 -b 65536 -n 100 -i 1000 -o 1024000
> +dio29 diotest3 -b 65536 -n 100 -i 100 -o 1024000
> +dio30 diotest6 -b 65536 -n 100 -i 100 -o 1024000
> #
> # RAW DEVICE TEST SECTION
> # DEV1 and DEV2 should be exported prior to execution or
> --
> 2.9.3
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH] dio: reduce the number of cycles
2017-06-14 11:16 ` Eryu Guan
@ 2017-06-14 13:49 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-06-15 6:54 ` Eryu Guan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Cyril Hrubis @ 2017-06-14 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi!
> I tested diotest30 with 100 iterations and it still could reproduce the
> bug I was seeing on 4.10 kernel quite reliably (even if not 100%), so
>
> Acked-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>
What's the reliability after the patch btw? What is the actual
percentage of undetected failures for at least 10 runs of the test?
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH] dio: reduce the number of cycles
2017-06-14 13:49 ` Cyril Hrubis
@ 2017-06-15 6:54 ` Eryu Guan
2017-06-15 9:23 ` Cyril Hrubis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Eryu Guan @ 2017-06-15 6:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 03:49:39PM +0200, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
> > I tested diotest30 with 100 iterations and it still could reproduce the
> > bug I was seeing on 4.10 kernel quite reliably (even if not 100%), so
> >
> > Acked-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>
>
> What's the reliability after the patch btw? What is the actual
> percentage of undetected failures for at least 10 runs of the test?
I ran diotest30 10 times with "-i 100" and 8 of them failed. IIRC, it
was not 100% reproduced either when I first saw the test failure in
4.10-rc kernel testing. So I think ~80% probability to reproduce is
fine.
Thanks,
Eryu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH] dio: reduce the number of cycles
2017-06-15 6:54 ` Eryu Guan
@ 2017-06-15 9:23 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-06-15 9:38 ` Li Wang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Cyril Hrubis @ 2017-06-15 9:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi!
> > What's the reliability after the patch btw? What is the actual
> > percentage of undetected failures for at least 10 runs of the test?
>
> I ran diotest30 10 times with "-i 100" and 8 of them failed. IIRC, it
> was not 100% reproduced either when I first saw the test failure in
> 4.10-rc kernel testing. So I think ~80% probability to reproduce is
> fine.
Fair enough I've added this paragraph to the commit message and pushed,
thanks.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH] dio: reduce the number of cycles
2017-06-15 9:23 ` Cyril Hrubis
@ 2017-06-15 9:38 ` Li Wang
2017-06-15 13:17 ` Cyril Hrubis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Li Wang @ 2017-06-15 9:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:
> Hi!
>> > What's the reliability after the patch btw? What is the actual
>> > percentage of undetected failures for at least 10 runs of the test?
>>
>> I ran diotest30 10 times with "-i 100" and 8 of them failed. IIRC, it
>> was not 100% reproduced either when I first saw the test failure in
>> 4.10-rc kernel testing. So I think ~80% probability to reproduce is
>> fine.
>
> Fair enough I've added this paragraph to the commit message and pushed,
> thanks.
Hmm, it does not takes about 100 minutes, without this change, it
takes almost 9mins. After applying, only 50secs.
That's probably my description misleading you, sorry about that. Since
you have already submitted this patch, so, let it go.
=============
commit b246897a5a8e31b47442d15d7854a0eb8e64e949
Author: Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Jun 14 11:38:30 2017 +0800
dio: reduce the number of cycles
These two cases (dio29/30) takes about 100 minutes, but they're not
stress test, so I suggest reducing the number of cycles.
After the change on my RHEL-7.3 (23G RAM, 24 CPU(s), x86_64) box, it
still takes almost 9 mins.
diotest06 1 TPASS : Read with Direct IO, Write without
diotest06 2 TPASS : Write with Direct IO, Read without
diotest06 3 TPASS : Read, Write with Direct IO
diotest06 0 TINFO : 3 testblocks 1000 iterations with 100
children completed
real 8m4.805s
user 71m36.722s
sys 8m51.649s
==============
--
Li Wang
liwang@redhat.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH] dio: reduce the number of cycles
2017-06-15 9:38 ` Li Wang
@ 2017-06-15 13:17 ` Cyril Hrubis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Cyril Hrubis @ 2017-06-15 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi!
> >> > What's the reliability after the patch btw? What is the actual
> >> > percentage of undetected failures for at least 10 runs of the test?
> >>
> >> I ran diotest30 10 times with "-i 100" and 8 of them failed. IIRC, it
> >> was not 100% reproduced either when I first saw the test failure in
> >> 4.10-rc kernel testing. So I think ~80% probability to reproduce is
> >> fine.
> >
> > Fair enough I've added this paragraph to the commit message and pushed,
> > thanks.
>
> Hmm, it does not takes about 100 minutes, without this change, it
> takes almost 9mins. After applying, only 50secs.
>
> That's probably my description misleading you, sorry about that. Since
> you have already submitted this patch, so, let it go.
Strange, it does take about ~10 minutes after the patch is applied for
me and about ~100 before at least for diotest6, diotest3 is a bit faster
with ~20 minutes before and ~4 minutes after. That is on NUMA machine
with 24 CPUs and 16GB RAM and /tmp on Btrfs.
The diotest6 appears to be taking about ~45 minutes in our automated
framework before this patch and diotest3 takes about 3 minutes.
On my workstation the diotest3 takes ~5 minutes after the patch and
diotest06 takes ~45 minutes. That is much more modest machine with just
4GB RAM and 4 CPUs.
So I would say that the resulting time depends on many factors, most
notably the underlying I/O device, fileystem, number of CPUs and RAM.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-06-15 13:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-06-14 3:38 [LTP] [PATCH] dio: reduce the number of cycles Li Wang
2017-06-14 11:16 ` Eryu Guan
2017-06-14 13:49 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-06-15 6:54 ` Eryu Guan
2017-06-15 9:23 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-06-15 9:38 ` Li Wang
2017-06-15 13:17 ` Cyril Hrubis
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.