From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934182AbcHDSw5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2016 14:52:57 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:35988 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752780AbcHDSw4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2016 14:52:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 11:52:51 -0700 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: "Huang, Ying" Cc: kernel test robot , lkp@01.org, LKML , linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression Message-ID: <20160804185251.GA13813@jaegeuk> References: <20160718020950.GB4986@yexl-desktop> <87twfmsndf.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <87bn18cvuu.fsf_-_@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <20160804172452.GA12093@jaegeuk> <874m70ctu3.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <874m70ctu3.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:44:20AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote: > Jaegeuk Kim writes: > > > Hi Huang, > > > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote: > >> Hi, Jaegeuk, > >> > >> "Huang, Ying" writes: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > I checked the comparison result below and found this is a regression for > >> > fsmark.files_per_sec, not fsmark.app_overhead. > >> > > >> > Best Regards, > >> > Huang, Ying > >> > > >> > kernel test robot writes: > >> > > >> >> FYI, we noticed a -36.3% regression of fsmark.files_per_sec due to commit: > >> >> > >> >> commit ec795418c41850056feb956534edf059dc1155d4 ("f2fs: use percpu_rw_semaphore") > >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jaegeuk/f2fs.git dev-test > >> > >> I found this has been merged by upstream. Do you have some plan to fix > >> it? Or you think the test itself has some problem? > > > > Sorry, too busy to take a look at this. > > The patch implements percpu_rw_semaphore which is intended to enhance FS > > scalability. Since I couldn't see any big regression in my test cases, could you > > check any debugging options which may give some overheads? > > The kernel config related with F2FS is as follow in our test, > > CONFIG_F2FS_FS=m > CONFIG_F2FS_STAT_FS=y > CONFIG_F2FS_FS_XATTR=y > CONFIG_F2FS_FS_POSIX_ACL=y > # CONFIG_F2FS_FS_SECURITY is not set > # CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS is not set > # CONFIG_F2FS_FS_ENCRYPTION is not set > # CONFIG_F2FS_IO_TRACE is not set > # CONFIG_F2FS_FAULT_INJECTION is not set > > What do you think we need to change? Or do you mean some other > debugging options? Anyway, you can check our kernel config attached. > > > Let me recheck this with whole my tests. > > Maybe you can try our kernel config? Or if our kernel config is not > reasonable, can you help us to revise it? The full kernel config we > used is attached with the email. I could reproduce the fsmark regression in my machine and confirm there is another small regression as well. I'll revert this patch. Thank you. [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression In terms of the above regression, I could check that _reproduce_ procedure includes mounting filesystem only. Is that correct? Thanks, > > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying > > > Thanks, > > > >> > >> We have another 2 regressions > >> > >> - [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression > >> - [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression > >> > >> they are merged by upstream now too. So same questions for them too. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Huang, Ying > >> > >> >> in testcase: fsmark > >> >> on test machine: 72 threads Haswell-EP with 128G memory > >> >> with following parameters: > >> > cpufreq_governor=performance/disk=1SSD/filesize=8K/fs=f2fs/iterations=8/nr_directories=16d/nr_files_per_directory=256fpd/nr_threads=4/sync_method=fsyncBeforeClose/test_size=72G > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Disclaimer: > >> >> Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided > >> >> for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software > >> >> design or configuration may affect actual performance. > >> >> >