From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:34946 "EHLO mail-wm0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751596AbcJPIwA (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Oct 2016 04:52:00 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id c78so56963428wme.0 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 01:51:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <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> <20161016071458.GA17675@infradead.org> From: Amir Goldstein Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 11:51:58 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fstests: run xfs_io as multi threaded process Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Dave Chinner , Eryu Guan , fstests List-ID: On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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? See answer in posted v2 Thanks for review!