From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:1633 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726033AbeHBHow (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2018 03:44:52 -0400 From: "Huang\, Ying" To: Chris Mason Cc: Josef Bacik , David Sterba , , Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp-robot] [mm] 9092c71bb7: blogbench.write_score -12.3% regression References: <20180408015739.GN3845@yexl-desktop> <876036apgx.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> <878t7t3k3s.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> <87h8m6m9ld.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> <878t7ai08v.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> <87zhyvew74.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 13:55:23 +0800 In-Reply-To: <87zhyvew74.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (Ying Huang's message of "Fri, 13 Jul 2018 09:55:11 +0800") Message-ID: <87tvod8g8k.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: "Huang, Ying" writes: > Hi, Chris, > > Chris Mason writes: > >> On 19 Jun 2018, at 23:51, Huang, Ying wrote: >>>>> "Huang, Ying" writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, Josef, >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you have time to take a look at the regression? >>>>>> >>>>>> kernel test robot writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Greeting, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FYI, we noticed a -12.3% regression of blogbench.write_score and >>>>>>> a +9.6% improvement >>>>>>> of blogbench.read_score due to commit: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> commit: 9092c71bb724dba2ecba849eae69e5c9d39bd3d2 ("mm: use >>>>>>> sc->priority for slab shrink targets") >>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git >>>>>>> master >>>>>>> >>>>>>> in testcase: blogbench >>>>>>> on test machine: 16 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU D-1541 @ >>>>>>> 2.10GHz with 8G memory >>>>>>> with following parameters: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> disk: 1SSD >>>>>>> fs: btrfs >>>>>>> cpufreq_governor: performance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> test-description: Blogbench is a portable filesystem benchmark >>>>>>> that tries to reproduce the load of a real-world busy file >>>>>>> server. >>>>>>> test-url: >> >> I'm surprised, this patch is a big win in production here at FB. I'll >> have to reproduce these results to better understand what is going on. >> My first guess is that since we have fewer inodes in slab, we're >> reading more inodes from disk in order to do the writes. >> >> But that should also make our read scores lower. > > Any update on this? Ping. Best Regards, Huang, Ying From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5367944022905003022==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Huang, Ying To: lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [mm] 9092c71bb7: blogbench.write_score -12.3% regression Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 13:55:23 +0800 Message-ID: <87tvod8g8k.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <87zhyvew74.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> List-Id: --===============5367944022905003022== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "Huang, Ying" writes: > Hi, Chris, > > Chris Mason writes: > >> On 19 Jun 2018, at 23:51, Huang, Ying wrote: >>>>> "Huang, Ying" writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, Josef, >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you have time to take a look at the regression? >>>>>> >>>>>> kernel test robot writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Greeting, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FYI, we noticed a -12.3% regression of blogbench.write_score and >>>>>>> a +9.6% improvement >>>>>>> of blogbench.read_score due to commit: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> commit: 9092c71bb724dba2ecba849eae69e5c9d39bd3d2 ("mm: use >>>>>>> sc->priority for slab shrink targets") >>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git >>>>>>> master >>>>>>> >>>>>>> in testcase: blogbench >>>>>>> on test machine: 16 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU D-1541 @ >>>>>>> 2.10GHz with 8G memory >>>>>>> with following parameters: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> disk: 1SSD >>>>>>> fs: btrfs >>>>>>> cpufreq_governor: performance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> test-description: Blogbench is a portable filesystem benchmark >>>>>>> that tries to reproduce the load of a real-world busy file >>>>>>> server. >>>>>>> test-url: >> >> I'm surprised, this patch is a big win in production here at FB. I'll >> have to reproduce these results to better understand what is going on. >> My first guess is that since we have fewer inodes in slab, we're >> reading more inodes from disk in order to do the writes. >> >> But that should also make our read scores lower. > > Any update on this? Ping. Best Regards, Huang, Ying --===============5367944022905003022==--