From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965962AbcHDUgQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:36:16 -0400 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:14262 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965420AbcHDUgO (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:36:14 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,471,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="859904652" From: "Huang\, Ying" To: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: "Huang\, Ying" , kernel test robot , , LKML , Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression 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> <20160804185251.GA13813@jaegeuk> Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 13:36:13 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160804185251.GA13813@jaegeuk> (Jaegeuk Kim's message of "Thu, 4 Aug 2016 11:52:51 -0700") Message-ID: <87r3a4b7b6.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jaegeuk Kim writes: > 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? Sorry, our test system failed to generate reproduce steps for aim7. We will implement it. - [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression The disk is one 48G ram disk. The steps for aim7 is, cat > workfile < workfile <