From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, lkp@01.org,
kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:24:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160804172452.GA12093@jaegeuk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bn18cvuu.fsf_-_@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com>
Hi Huang,
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Jaegeuk,
>
> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> 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 <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> 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?
Let me recheck this with whole my tests.
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.
> >>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:24:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160804172452.GA12093@jaegeuk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bn18cvuu.fsf_-_@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1963 bytes --]
Hi Huang,
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Jaegeuk,
>
> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> 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 <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> 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?
Let me recheck this with whole my tests.
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.
> >>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
lkp@01.org, 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: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:24:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160804172452.GA12093@jaegeuk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bn18cvuu.fsf_-_@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com>
Hi Huang,
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Jaegeuk,
>
> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> 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 <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> 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?
Let me recheck this with whole my tests.
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.
> >>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-04 17:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ 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 2:09 ` kernel test robot
2016-07-18 2:09 ` kernel test robot
2016-07-18 20:27 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-07-18 20:27 ` Huang, Ying
2016-07-18 20:27 ` Huang, Ying
2016-08-04 17:00 ` [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec " Huang, Ying
2016-08-04 17:00 ` Huang, Ying
2016-08-04 17:00 ` Huang, Ying
2016-08-04 17:24 ` Jaegeuk Kim [this message]
2016-08-04 17:24 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Jaegeuk Kim
2016-08-04 17:24 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-08-04 17:44 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-08-04 17:44 ` Huang, Ying
2016-08-04 17:44 ` Huang, Ying
2016-08-04 18:52 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Jaegeuk Kim
2016-08-04 18:52 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-08-04 20:36 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-08-04 20:36 ` Huang, Ying
2016-08-04 20:36 ` Huang, Ying
2016-08-11 22:49 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-08-11 22:49 ` Huang, Ying
2016-08-11 22:49 ` Huang, Ying
2016-08-12 1:22 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Jaegeuk Kim
2016-08-12 1:22 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-08-24 16:51 ` [LKP] [lkp] " huang ying
2016-08-24 16:51 ` huang ying
2016-08-27 0:52 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-08-27 0:52 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-08-27 2:13 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Fengguang Wu
2016-08-27 2:13 ` Fengguang Wu
2016-08-27 2:13 ` Fengguang Wu
2016-08-30 2:30 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Jaegeuk Kim
2016-08-30 2:30 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-08-30 16:44 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-08-30 16:44 ` Huang, Ying
2016-08-30 16:44 ` Huang, Ying
2016-09-26 6:26 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-09-26 6:26 ` Huang, Ying
2016-09-26 6:26 ` Huang, Ying
2016-09-26 18:23 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Jaegeuk Kim
2016-09-26 18:23 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-09-27 0:50 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-09-27 0:50 ` Huang, Ying
2016-09-27 0:50 ` Huang, Ying
2016-09-27 1:41 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Jaegeuk Kim
2016-09-27 1:41 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-09-27 1:41 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-10-31 3:14 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-10-31 3:14 ` Huang, Ying
2016-10-31 3:14 ` Huang, Ying
2016-10-31 17:42 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Jaegeuk Kim
2016-10-31 17:42 ` Jaegeuk Kim
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=20160804172452.GA12093@jaegeuk \
--to=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=xiaolong.ye@intel.com \
--cc=ying.huang@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.