Re: Should group_reporting be clumping together different groups?

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 2012-09-29 04:11, Akash Verma wrote:
> Let's say I use FIO with the following job file:
> 
> 
> [group_1]
> rw=randwrite
> size=1024k
> ioengine=libaio
> time_based=1
> runtime=10
> direct=1
> do_verify=0
> numjobs=2
> group_reporting=1
> 
> [group_2]
> rw=randread
> size=1024k
> ioengine=libaio
> time_based=1
> runtime=10
> direct=1
> numjobs=2
> group_reporting=1
> 
> 
> I get a single report, named after group_1 but actually including
> results for group_2 as well. Since I'm using group_reporting with
> numjobs, shouldn't I be getting two reports, one for group_1 and one
> for group_2?
> 
> I am able to get the desired functionality using:
> new_group=1
> under group_2, causing FIO to specifically treat that group as
> separate for reporting purposes. However the current behavior still
> doesn't conform with the description given for both group_reporting
> and new_group.

Hmm, I think it's perfectly aligned with what is described. The
documentation states that jobs are part of the same group, except if:

- They are separated by a stone wall, which implies starting a new
  group.

- or the new_group primitive is used explicitly.

-- 
Jens Axboe