Re: [lkp-robot] [irq/affinity] 13c024422c: fsmark.files_per_sec -4.3% regression

[Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1519 bytes --]

On 04/14, Busch, Keith wrote:
>Actually, additional debug is not necessary. I see the accounting error in the patch you identified and have a fix ready for submission. Thank you for finding the mistake. The incorrect setting required a fairly large number of CPU's with that NVMe controller, so I wouldn't have noticed it on most of the servers I have access to. The 0-day regression system is incredibly helpful!
>

I am working on to get these debug data while I receive this message, glad 0day helps :).

Thanks,
Xiaolong


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keith Busch [mailto:keith.busch(a)intel.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:24 AM
>To: Ye, Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
>Cc: lkp(a)01.org
>Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [irq/affinity] 13c024422c: fsmark.files_per_sec -4.3% regression
>
>On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 09:06:04AM +0800, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
>> On 04/12, Busch, Keith wrote:
>> >Hi Xiaolong,
>> >
>> >Thanks for letting me know of the regression. This change wasn't supposed to affect anything outside the unbalanced numa case, so if it's indeed the culprit, I'll need to fix that.
>> >
>> >From the machine that demonstrates the regression, could you send me 'lscpu'? And the output from the following commands, both with and without the patch applied?
>> 
>> Okay, when should I run the `lscpu` and below cmds, before, after or during the test?
>
>The lscpu shouldn't change at any time, so you can grab that either
>before or after, with any set of patches applied.