From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
Cc: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, LKP ML <lkp@01.org>,
huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:14:57 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bmy15hvy.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160927014138.GB35593@jaegeuk> (Jaegeuk Kim's message of "Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:41:38 -0700")
Hi, Kim,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:50:02AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> >> Hi, Jaegeuk,
>> >>
>> >> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hello,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:13:34AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>> >> >>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > > >> > - [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression
>> >> >>> > > >> >
>> >> >>> > > >> > The disk is 4 12G ram disk, and setup RAID0 on them via mdadm. The
>> >> >>> > > >> > steps for aim7 is,
>> >> >>> > > >> >
>> >> >>> > > >> > cat > workfile <<EOF
>> >> >>> > > >> > FILESIZE: 1M
>> >> >>> > > >> > POOLSIZE: 10M
>> >> >>> > > >> > 10 sync_disk_rw
>> >> >>> > > >> > EOF
>> >> >>> > > >> >
>> >> >>> > > >> > (
>> >> >>> > > >> > echo $HOSTNAME
>> >> >>> > > >> > echo sync_disk_rw
>> >> >>> > > >> >
>> >> >>> > > >> > echo 1
>> >> >>> > > >> > echo 600
>> >> >>> > > >> > echo 2
>> >> >>> > > >> > echo 600
>> >> >>> > > >> > echo 1
>> >> >>> > > >> > ) | ./multitask -t &
>> >> >>> > > >>
>> >> >>> > > >> Any update on these 2 regressions? Is the information is enough for you
>> >> >>> > > >> to reproduce?
>> >> >>> > > >
>> >> >>> > > > Sorry, I've had no time to dig this due to business travel now.
>> >> >>> > > > I'll check that when back to US.
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > > Any update?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Sorry, how can I get multitask binary?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> It's part of aim7, which can be downloaded here:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> http://nchc.dl.sourceforge.net/project/aimbench/aim-suite7/Initial%20release/s7110.tar.Z
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thank you for the codes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've run this workload on the latest f2fs and compared performance having
>> >> >> without the reported patch. (1TB nvme SSD, 16 cores, 16GB DRAM)
>> >> >> Interestingly, I could find slight performance improvement rather than
>> >> >> regression. :(
>> >> >> Not sure how to reproduce this.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think the difference lies on disk used. The ramdisk is used in the
>> >> > original test, but it appears that your memory is too small to setup the
>> >> > RAM disk for test. So it may be impossible for you to reproduce the
>> >> > test unless you can find more memory :)
>> >> >
>> >> > But we can help you to root cause the issue. What additional data do
>> >> > you want? perf-profile data before and after the patch?
>> >>
>> >> Any update to this regression?
>> >
>> > Sorry, no. But meanwhile, I've purchased more DRAMs. :)
>> > Now I'm with 128GB DRAM. I can configure 64GB as pmem.
>> > Is it worth to try the test again?
>>
>> I think you are the decision maker for this. You can judge whether the
>> test is reasonable. And we can adjust our test accordingly.
>>
>> BTW: For this test, we use brd ram disk and raid to test.
>
> Okay, let me try this again.
Any update on this?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-31 3:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-18 2:09 [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.app_overhead -36.3% regression kernel test robot
2016-07-18 20:27 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2016-08-04 17:00 ` [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec " Huang, Ying
2016-08-04 17:24 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-08-04 17:44 ` Huang, Ying
2016-08-04 18:52 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-08-04 20:36 ` Huang, Ying
2016-08-11 22:49 ` Huang, Ying
2016-08-12 1:22 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-08-24 16:51 ` huang ying
2016-08-27 0:52 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-08-27 2:13 ` Fengguang Wu
2016-08-30 2:30 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-08-30 16:44 ` Huang, Ying
2016-09-26 6:26 ` Huang, Ying
2016-09-26 18:23 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-09-27 0:50 ` Huang, Ying
2016-09-27 1:41 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-10-31 3:14 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2016-10-31 17:42 ` Jaegeuk Kim
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=87bmy15hvy.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com \
--to=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
/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).