From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [Bug #32982] Kernel locks up a few minutes after boot Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:38:52 +0200 Message-ID: <4DAC853C.5070509@fusionio.com> References: <_H4l51C1wXN.A.yDC.yGuqNB@chimera> <4DAC2429.5000105@fusionio.com> <4DAC82E6.3020809@fusionio.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Bart Van Assche Cc: Linus Torvalds , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Maciej Rutecki , Florian Mickler , Neil Brown On 2011-04-18 20:32, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 2011-04-18 20:21, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> a performance regression in the block layer not related to the md >>> issue. If I run a small block IOPS test on a block device created by >>> ib_srp (NOOP scheduler) I see about 11% less IOPS than with 2.6.38.3 >>> (155.000 IOPS with 2.6.38.3 and 140.000 IOPS with 2.6.39-rc3+). >> >> That's not good. What's the test case? > > Nothing more than a fio IOPS test: > > fio --bs=512 --ioengine=libaio --buffered=0 --rw=read --thread > --iodepth=64 --numjobs=2 --loops=10000 --group_reporting --size=1G > --gtod_reduce=1 --name=iops-test --filename=/dev/${dev} --invalidate=1 Interesting, I'll have to check if we regressed with all these recent changes. Comparing your .38 to .39-rc3+, are you using more/less CPU, more/less sys%, etc? A quick perf record -fg / perf report -g for both kernels would be nice to see. -- Jens Axboe