From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
To: Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@intel.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, lkp@01.org
Subject: Re: [xfs] 610125ab1e: fsmark.app_overhead -71.2% improvement
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:20:49 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190909062049.GQ2254@rh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <df5f4105-58a9-492d-882e-0963fd5cb23f@intel.com>
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 02:06:54PM +0800, Rong Chen wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 9/9/19 1:32 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 09:58:49AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > Greeting,
> > >
> > > FYI, we noticed a -71.2% improvement of fsmark.app_overhead due to commit:
> > A negative improvement? That's somewhat ambiguous...
>
> Sorry for causing the misunderstanding, it's a improvement not a regression.
>
>
> >
> > > 0e822255f95db400 610125ab1e4b1b48dcffe74d9d8
> > > ---------------- ---------------------------
> > > %stddev %change %stddev
> > > \ | \
> > > 1.095e+08 -71.2% 31557568 fsmark.app_overhead
> > > 6157 +95.5% 12034 fsmark.files_per_sec
> > So, the files/s rate doubled, and the amount of time spent in
> > userspace by the fsmark app dropped by 70%.
> >
> > > 167.31 -47.3% 88.25 fsmark.time.elapsed_time
> > > 167.31 -47.3% 88.25 fsmark.time.elapsed_time.max
> > Wall time went down by 50%.
> >
> > > 91.00 -8.8% 83.00 fsmark.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
> > > 148.15 -53.2% 69.38 fsmark.time.system_time
> > As did system CPU.
> >
> > IOWs, this change has changed create performance by a factor of 4 -
> > the file create is 2x faster for half the CPU spent.
> >
> > I don't think this is a negative improvement - it's a large positive
> > improvement. I suspect that you need to change the metric
> > classifications for this workload...
> To avoid misunderstanding, we'll use fsmark.files_per_sec instead of
> fsmark.app_overhead in the subject.
Well, the two are separate ways of measuring improvement. A change
in one without a change in the other is just as significant as
a change in both...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
dchinner@redhat.com
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-09 6:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20190909015849.GN15734@shao2-debian>
2019-09-09 5:32 ` [xfs] 610125ab1e: fsmark.app_overhead -71.2% improvement Dave Chinner
2019-09-09 6:06 ` Rong Chen
2019-09-09 6:20 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
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=20190909062049.GQ2254@rh \
--to=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=rong.a.chen@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).