From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Huang\, Ying" Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:26:06 +0800 Message-ID: <87fuoni3cx.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> References: <87bn18cvuu.fsf_-_@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <20160804172452.GA12093@jaegeuk> <874m70ctu3.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <20160804185251.GA13813@jaegeuk> <87r3a4b7b6.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <87vaz6yl8a.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <20160812012238.GA47037@jaegeuk> <20160827005257.GD88444@jaegeuk> <20160827021334.eb3xpz57xvo37g5l@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <20160830023048.GA2088@jaegeuk> <87pooqnr4t.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1boPMm-0004O5-0G for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 06:26:16 +0000 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1boPMk-0008R9-P9 for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 06:26:15 +0000 In-Reply-To: <87pooqnr4t.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> (Ying Huang's message of "Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:44:18 -0700") List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: "Huang, Ying" Cc: LKP ML , LKML , linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Jaegeuk Kim , Fengguang Wu , huang ying Hi, Jaegeuk, "Huang, Ying" writes: > Jaegeuk Kim 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 <>> > > >> > 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? Best Regards, Huang, Ying ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2487439082170529304==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Huang, Ying To: lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:26:06 +0800 Message-ID: <87fuoni3cx.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <87pooqnr4t.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> List-Id: --===============2487439082170529304== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Jaegeuk, "Huang, Ying" writes: > Jaegeuk Kim 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 <>> > > >> > 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%20re= lease/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? Best Regards, Huang, Ying --===============2487439082170529304==-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966491AbcIZG0O (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 02:26:14 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:63355 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966170AbcIZG0J (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 02:26:09 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,398,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="1036468867" From: "Huang\, Ying" To: "Huang\, Ying" Cc: Jaegeuk Kim , Fengguang Wu , LKP ML , huang ying , LKML , Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression References: <87bn18cvuu.fsf_-_@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <20160804172452.GA12093@jaegeuk> <874m70ctu3.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <20160804185251.GA13813@jaegeuk> <87r3a4b7b6.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <87vaz6yl8a.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <20160812012238.GA47037@jaegeuk> <20160827005257.GD88444@jaegeuk> <20160827021334.eb3xpz57xvo37g5l@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <20160830023048.GA2088@jaegeuk> <87pooqnr4t.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:26:06 +0800 In-Reply-To: <87pooqnr4t.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> (Ying Huang's message of "Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:44:18 -0700") Message-ID: <87fuoni3cx.fsf@yhuang-dev.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 Hi, Jaegeuk, "Huang, Ying" writes: > Jaegeuk Kim 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 <>> > > >> > 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? Best Regards, Huang, Ying