* unexpected stonewall parsing led jobs separated by stonewall to run concurrently
@ 2017-07-12 5:13 Ido Ben-Tsion
2017-07-12 6:26 ` Sitsofe Wheeler
2017-07-12 6:58 ` Tomohiro Kusumi
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ido Ben-Tsion @ 2017-07-12 5:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: fio
fio version: fio-2.21-37-ga2c9
fio file excerpt:
[global]
ioengine=sg
invalidate=1
ramp_time=5
iodepth=16
runtime=300
time_based
bs=64k
norandommap
loops=5
[seq_read-2-jobs]
rw=read
numjobs=2
stonewall
[randread]
rw=randread
[seq_write]
rw=write
stonewall
...
In the report, I see jobs with groupid 0 which are not supposed to be
on same group:
...,jobname,groupid,...
...,seq_read-2-jobs,0,...
...,seq_read-2-jobs,0,...
...,randread,0,...
...,seq_write,1,...
thanks,
Ido Ben-Tsion
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: unexpected stonewall parsing led jobs separated by stonewall to run concurrently
2017-07-12 5:13 unexpected stonewall parsing led jobs separated by stonewall to run concurrently Ido Ben-Tsion
@ 2017-07-12 6:26 ` Sitsofe Wheeler
2017-07-12 7:01 ` Ido Ben-Tsion
2017-07-12 6:58 ` Tomohiro Kusumi
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sitsofe Wheeler @ 2017-07-12 6:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ido Ben-Tsion; +Cc: fio
Hi,
On 12 July 2017 at 06:13, Ido Ben-Tsion <idob@infinidat.com> wrote:
> fio version: fio-2.21-37-ga2c9
>
> fio file excerpt:
> [global]
> ioengine=sg
> invalidate=1
> ramp_time=5
> iodepth=16
> runtime=300
> time_based
> bs=64k
> norandommap
> loops=5
>
> [seq_read-2-jobs]
> rw=read
> numjobs=2
> stonewall
>
> [randread]
> rw=randread
> [seq_write]
> rw=write
> stonewall
> ...
>
> In the report, I see jobs with groupid 0 which are not supposed to be
> on same group:
> ...,jobname,groupid,...
> ...,seq_read-2-jobs,0,...
> ...,seq_read-2-jobs,0,...
> ...,randread,0,...
> ...,seq_write,1,...
I'm not sure I follow - which jobs are wrong? Looking at the opening
sentence explanation (and the alternative name) for stonewall in the
HOWTO (http://fio.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fio_man.html#cmdoption-arg-stonewall
) seems to describe the behaviour you're seeing.
Can you be more explicit as to the problem?
--
Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: unexpected stonewall parsing led jobs separated by stonewall to run concurrently
2017-07-12 5:13 unexpected stonewall parsing led jobs separated by stonewall to run concurrently Ido Ben-Tsion
2017-07-12 6:26 ` Sitsofe Wheeler
@ 2017-07-12 6:58 ` Tomohiro Kusumi
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tomohiro Kusumi @ 2017-07-12 6:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ido Ben-Tsion; +Cc: fio
Run with --debug=process and see if there is
"<name>: stonewall wait"
for <name> which you expect to be stonewall'd.
2017-07-12 8:13 GMT+03:00 Ido Ben-Tsion <idob@infinidat.com>:
> fio version: fio-2.21-37-ga2c9
>
> fio file excerpt:
> [global]
> ioengine=sg
> invalidate=1
> ramp_time=5
> iodepth=16
> runtime=300
> time_based
> bs=64k
> norandommap
> loops=5
>
> [seq_read-2-jobs]
> rw=read
> numjobs=2
> stonewall
>
> [randread]
> rw=randread
> [seq_write]
> rw=write
> stonewall
> ...
>
> In the report, I see jobs with groupid 0 which are not supposed to be
> on same group:
> ...,jobname,groupid,...
> ...,seq_read-2-jobs,0,...
> ...,seq_read-2-jobs,0,...
> ...,randread,0,...
> ...,seq_write,1,...
>
>
> thanks,
> Ido Ben-Tsion
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: unexpected stonewall parsing led jobs separated by stonewall to run concurrently
2017-07-12 6:26 ` Sitsofe Wheeler
@ 2017-07-12 7:01 ` Ido Ben-Tsion
2017-07-12 18:19 ` Sitsofe Wheeler
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ido Ben-Tsion @ 2017-07-12 7:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sitsofe Wheeler; +Cc: fio
ok, I understand. I didn't think of stonewall as being part of a job.
I thought of it as a separator between jobs, unrelated to any specific
job. which is not what the documentation explains.
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12 July 2017 at 06:13, Ido Ben-Tsion <idob@infinidat.com> wrote:
>> fio version: fio-2.21-37-ga2c9
>>
>> fio file excerpt:
>> [global]
>> ioengine=sg
>> invalidate=1
>> ramp_time=5
>> iodepth=16
>> runtime=300
>> time_based
>> bs=64k
>> norandommap
>> loops=5
>>
>> [seq_read-2-jobs]
>> rw=read
>> numjobs=2
>> stonewall
>>
>> [randread]
>> rw=randread
>> [seq_write]
>> rw=write
>> stonewall
>> ...
>>
>> In the report, I see jobs with groupid 0 which are not supposed to be
>> on same group:
>> ...,jobname,groupid,...
>> ...,seq_read-2-jobs,0,...
>> ...,seq_read-2-jobs,0,...
>> ...,randread,0,...
>> ...,seq_write,1,...
>
> I'm not sure I follow - which jobs are wrong? Looking at the opening
> sentence explanation (and the alternative name) for stonewall in the
> HOWTO (http://fio.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fio_man.html#cmdoption-arg-stonewall
> ) seems to describe the behaviour you're seeing.
>
> Can you be more explicit as to the problem?
>
> --
> Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/
--
Ido Ben-Tsion
Ackerstein Towers, A Tower, Fl.4
Hamenofim St. P.O.B 12696, Hertzelia Pituach, 46725
T +972.9.970.4000, F +972.9.970.4001
M +972.5X.XXX.XXXX
www.infinidat.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: unexpected stonewall parsing led jobs separated by stonewall to run concurrently
2017-07-12 7:01 ` Ido Ben-Tsion
@ 2017-07-12 18:19 ` Sitsofe Wheeler
2017-07-12 19:37 ` Ido Ben-Tsion
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sitsofe Wheeler @ 2017-07-12 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ido Ben-Tsion; +Cc: fio
Hi,
Would changing the HOWTO to say:
"Make the job containing the stonewall parameter wait for preceding
jobs in the job file to exit before starting."
be any clearer? What did you find that made you expect the original
behaviour and what did you find that made you change your
understanding?
On 12 July 2017 at 08:01, Ido Ben-Tsion <idob@infinidat.com> wrote:
> ok, I understand. I didn't think of stonewall as being part of a job.
> I thought of it as a separator between jobs, unrelated to any specific
> job. which is not what the documentation explains.
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12 July 2017 at 06:13, Ido Ben-Tsion <idob@infinidat.com> wrote:
>>> fio version: fio-2.21-37-ga2c9
>>>
>>> fio file excerpt:
>>> [global]
>>> ioengine=sg
>>> invalidate=1
>>> ramp_time=5
>>> iodepth=16
>>> runtime=300
>>> time_based
>>> bs=64k
>>> norandommap
>>> loops=5
>>>
>>> [seq_read-2-jobs]
>>> rw=read
>>> numjobs=2
>>> stonewall
>>>
>>> [randread]
>>> rw=randread
>>> [seq_write]
>>> rw=write
>>> stonewall
>>> ...
>>>
>>> In the report, I see jobs with groupid 0 which are not supposed to be
>>> on same group:
>>> ...,jobname,groupid,...
>>> ...,seq_read-2-jobs,0,...
>>> ...,seq_read-2-jobs,0,...
>>> ...,randread,0,...
>>> ...,seq_write,1,...
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow - which jobs are wrong? Looking at the opening
>> sentence explanation (and the alternative name) for stonewall in the
>> HOWTO (http://fio.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fio_man.html#cmdoption-arg-stonewall
>> ) seems to describe the behaviour you're seeing.
>>
>> Can you be more explicit as to the problem?
--
Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: unexpected stonewall parsing led jobs separated by stonewall to run concurrently
2017-07-12 18:19 ` Sitsofe Wheeler
@ 2017-07-12 19:37 ` Ido Ben-Tsion
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ido Ben-Tsion @ 2017-07-12 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sitsofe Wheeler; +Cc: fio
in example files, stonewall is usually the last option, and is usually
part of all or none of the jobs. learning by example didn't work for
me :)
yes,
"Make the job containing the stonewall parameter wait for preceding
jobs in the job file to exit before starting."
is clearer.
may I suggest an alternative?
maybe a special reserved job-name [stonewall] can make it clear, while
maintaining backwards compatibility (assuming the unlikely case of
existing files with such a job name). I would expect such a dummy-job
to be empty and contain the implicit stonewall option, preserving
existing behavior.
introducing dummy jobs (e.g., rw=null) can also serve other features,
such as waiting/thinking for a while between jobs (letting cache cool
off) or triggering external commands.
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would changing the HOWTO to say:
> "Make the job containing the stonewall parameter wait for preceding
> jobs in the job file to exit before starting."
> be any clearer? What did you find that made you expect the original
> behaviour and what did you find that made you change your
> understanding?
>
> On 12 July 2017 at 08:01, Ido Ben-Tsion <idob@infinidat.com> wrote:
>> ok, I understand. I didn't think of stonewall as being part of a job.
>> I thought of it as a separator between jobs, unrelated to any specific
>> job. which is not what the documentation explains.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 12 July 2017 at 06:13, Ido Ben-Tsion <idob@infinidat.com> wrote:
>>>> fio version: fio-2.21-37-ga2c9
>>>>
>>>> fio file excerpt:
>>>> [global]
>>>> ioengine=sg
>>>> invalidate=1
>>>> ramp_time=5
>>>> iodepth=16
>>>> runtime=300
>>>> time_based
>>>> bs=64k
>>>> norandommap
>>>> loops=5
>>>>
>>>> [seq_read-2-jobs]
>>>> rw=read
>>>> numjobs=2
>>>> stonewall
>>>>
>>>> [randread]
>>>> rw=randread
>>>> [seq_write]
>>>> rw=write
>>>> stonewall
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> In the report, I see jobs with groupid 0 which are not supposed to be
>>>> on same group:
>>>> ...,jobname,groupid,...
>>>> ...,seq_read-2-jobs,0,...
>>>> ...,seq_read-2-jobs,0,...
>>>> ...,randread,0,...
>>>> ...,seq_write,1,...
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I follow - which jobs are wrong? Looking at the opening
>>> sentence explanation (and the alternative name) for stonewall in the
>>> HOWTO (http://fio.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fio_man.html#cmdoption-arg-stonewall
>>> ) seems to describe the behaviour you're seeing.
>>>
>>> Can you be more explicit as to the problem?
>
> --
> Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/
--
Ido Ben-Tsion
Ackerstein Towers, A Tower, Fl.4
Hamenofim St. P.O.B 12696, Hertzelia Pituach, 46725
T +972.9.970.4000, F +972.9.970.4001
M +972.5X.XXX.XXXX
www.infinidat.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-07-12 19:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-07-12 5:13 unexpected stonewall parsing led jobs separated by stonewall to run concurrently Ido Ben-Tsion
2017-07-12 6:26 ` Sitsofe Wheeler
2017-07-12 7:01 ` Ido Ben-Tsion
2017-07-12 18:19 ` Sitsofe Wheeler
2017-07-12 19:37 ` Ido Ben-Tsion
2017-07-12 6:58 ` Tomohiro Kusumi
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.