From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:35876 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753071AbcJORFH (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Oct 2016 13:05:07 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:04:41 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fstests: run xfs_io as multi threaded process Message-ID: <20161015170441.GA23090@infradead.org> References: <1476477810-17478-1-git-send-email-amir73il@gmail.com> <1476477810-17478-2-git-send-email-amir73il@gmail.com> <20161015091126.GA9631@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: fstests-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Dave Chinner , eguan@redhat.com, fstests List-ID: On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 06:13:29PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > I can't say that I have made a statistics analysis of the affect of the flag > on xfstests runtime, but for the -g quick group on small SSD partition, > I did not observe any noticable difference in runtime. > > I will try to run some micro benchmarks or look for specific tests that > do many file opens and little io, to get more performance numbers. Yes, if there is no effect at least that's not a problem. I'd just want confirmation for that. In the end we probably don't use xfs_io heavily parallel on the same fd a lot.