From: keith.busch@intel.com (Keith Busch)
Subject: [lkp-robot] [irq/affinity] 13c024422c: fsmark.files_per_sec -4.3% regression
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:02:28 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170412150227.GD623@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170412013328.GC31394@yexl-desktop>
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017@09:33:28AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a -4.3% regression of fsmark.files_per_sec due to commit:
>
>
> commit: 13c024422cbb6dcc513667be9a2613b0f0de781a ("irq/affinity: Assign all CPUs a vector")
> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Keith-Busch/irq-affinity-Assign-all-CPUs-a-vector/20170401-035036
>
>
> in testcase: fsmark
> on test machine: 72 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz with 128G memory
> with following parameters:
>
> iterations: 8
> disk: 1SSD
> nr_threads: 4
> fs: btrfs
> filesize: 9B
> test_size: 16G
> sync_method: fsyncBeforeClose
> nr_directories: 16d
> nr_files_per_directory: 256fpd
> cpufreq_governor: performance
>
> test-description: The fsmark is a file system benchmark to test synchronous write workloads, for example, mail servers workload.
> test-url: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fsmark/
>
>
> Details are as below:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
This wasn't supposed to change anything if all the nodes have the same
number of CPU's. I've reached out to the 0-day team to get a little more
information on the before/after smp affinity settings to see how this
algorithm messed up the spread on this system.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [irq/affinity] 13c024422c: fsmark.files_per_sec -4.3% regression
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:02:28 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170412150227.GD623@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170412013328.GC31394@yexl-desktop>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1360 bytes --]
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:33:28AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a -4.3% regression of fsmark.files_per_sec due to commit:
>
>
> commit: 13c024422cbb6dcc513667be9a2613b0f0de781a ("irq/affinity: Assign all CPUs a vector")
> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Keith-Busch/irq-affinity-Assign-all-CPUs-a-vector/20170401-035036
>
>
> in testcase: fsmark
> on test machine: 72 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz with 128G memory
> with following parameters:
>
> iterations: 8
> disk: 1SSD
> nr_threads: 4
> fs: btrfs
> filesize: 9B
> test_size: 16G
> sync_method: fsyncBeforeClose
> nr_directories: 16d
> nr_files_per_directory: 256fpd
> cpufreq_governor: performance
>
> test-description: The fsmark is a file system benchmark to test synchronous write workloads, for example, mail servers workload.
> test-url: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fsmark/
>
>
> Details are as below:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
This wasn't supposed to change anything if all the nodes have the same
number of CPU's. I've reached out to the 0-day team to get a little more
information on the before/after smp affinity settings to see how this
algorithm messed up the spread on this system.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
To: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
lkp@01.org
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [irq/affinity] 13c024422c: fsmark.files_per_sec -4.3% regression
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:02:28 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170412150227.GD623@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170412013328.GC31394@yexl-desktop>
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:33:28AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a -4.3% regression of fsmark.files_per_sec due to commit:
>
>
> commit: 13c024422cbb6dcc513667be9a2613b0f0de781a ("irq/affinity: Assign all CPUs a vector")
> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Keith-Busch/irq-affinity-Assign-all-CPUs-a-vector/20170401-035036
>
>
> in testcase: fsmark
> on test machine: 72 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz with 128G memory
> with following parameters:
>
> iterations: 8
> disk: 1SSD
> nr_threads: 4
> fs: btrfs
> filesize: 9B
> test_size: 16G
> sync_method: fsyncBeforeClose
> nr_directories: 16d
> nr_files_per_directory: 256fpd
> cpufreq_governor: performance
>
> test-description: The fsmark is a file system benchmark to test synchronous write workloads, for example, mail servers workload.
> test-url: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fsmark/
>
>
> Details are as below:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
This wasn't supposed to change anything if all the nodes have the same
number of CPU's. I've reached out to the 0-day team to get a little more
information on the before/after smp affinity settings to see how this
algorithm messed up the spread on this system.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-12 15:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-28 23:21 [PATCH] irq/affinity: Assign all CPUs a vector Keith Busch
2017-03-28 23:21 ` Keith Busch
2017-03-29 17:15 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-03-29 17:15 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-03-29 17:54 ` Keith Busch
2017-03-29 17:54 ` Keith Busch
2017-03-29 17:50 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-03-29 17:50 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-03-30 8:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-30 8:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-03-30 17:12 ` Keith Busch
2017-03-30 17:12 ` Keith Busch
2017-04-12 1:33 ` [lkp-robot] [irq/affinity] 13c024422c: fsmark.files_per_sec -4.3% regression kernel test robot
2017-04-12 1:33 ` kernel test robot
2017-04-12 1:33 ` kernel test robot
2017-04-12 13:52 ` Busch, Keith
2017-04-13 1:06 ` Ye Xiaolong
2017-04-13 14:24 ` Keith Busch
2017-04-13 17:14 ` Busch, Keith
2017-04-14 0:49 ` Ye Xiaolong
2017-04-12 15:02 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2017-04-12 15:02 ` Keith Busch
2017-04-12 15:02 ` Keith Busch
2017-03-31 10:59 ` [PATCH] irq/affinity: Assign all CPUs a vector Thomas Gleixner
2017-03-31 10:59 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=20170412150227.GD623@localhost.localdomain \
--to=keith.busch@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.