From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Cc: <oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev>, <lkp@intel.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
<ying.huang@intel.com>, <feng.tang@intel.com>,
<fengwei.yin@intel.com>, <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [jbd2] 6a3afb6ac6: fileio.latency_95th_ms 92.5% regression
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 11:31:39 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dcc72d34-89e1-6181-3556-a1a981256cc6@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202401021525.a27b9444-oliver.sang@intel.com>
On 2024/1/2 15:31, kernel test robot wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> kernel test robot noticed a 92.5% regression of fileio.latency_95th_ms on:
Hello,
This seems a little weird, the tests doesn't use blk-cgroup, and the patch
increase IO priority in WBT, so there shouldn't be any negative influence in
theory. I've tested sysbench on my machine with Intel Xeon Gold 6240 CPU,
400GB memory with HDD disk, and couldn't reproduce this regression.
==
Without 6a3afb6ac6 ("jbd2: increase the journal IO's priority")
==
$ sysbench fileio --events=0 --threads=128 --time=600 --file-test-mode=seqwr --file-total-size=68719476736 --file-io-mode=sync --file-num=1024 run
sysbench 1.1.0-df89d34 (using bundled LuaJIT 2.1.0-beta3)
Running the test with following options:
Number of threads: 128
Initializing random number generator from current time
Extra file open flags: (none)
1024 files, 64MiB each
64GiB total file size
Block size 16KiB
Periodic FSYNC enabled, calling fsync() each 100 requests.
Calling fsync() at the end of test, Enabled.
Using synchronous I/O mode
Doing sequential write (creation) test
Initializing worker threads...
Threads started!
Throughput:
read: IOPS=0.00 0.00 MiB/s (0.00 MB/s)
write: IOPS=31961.19 499.39 MiB/s (523.65 MB/s)
fsync: IOPS=327500.24
Latency (ms):
min: 0.00
avg: 0.33
max: 920.89
95th percentile: 0.33
sum: 71212319.19
==
With 6a3afb6ac6 ("jbd2: increase the journal IO's priority")
==
$ sysbench fileio --events=0 --threads=128 --time=600 --file-test-mode=seqwr --file-total-size=68719476736 --file-io-mode=sync --file-num=1024 run
sysbench 1.1.0-df89d34 (using bundled LuaJIT 2.1.0-beta3)
Running the test with following options:
Number of threads: 128
Initializing random number generator from current time
Extra file open flags: (none)
1024 files, 64MiB each
64GiB total file size
Block size 16KiB
Periodic FSYNC enabled, calling fsync() each 100 requests.
Calling fsync() at the end of test, Enabled.
Using synchronous I/O mode
Doing sequential write (creation) test
Initializing worker threads...
Threads started!
Throughput:
read: IOPS=0.00 0.00 MiB/s (0.00 MB/s)
write: IOPS=31710.38 495.47 MiB/s (519.54 MB/s)
fsync: IOPS=324931.88
Latency (ms):
min: 0.00
avg: 0.33
max: 1051.69
95th percentile: 0.32
sum: 71309894.62
Thanks,
Yi.
>
>
> commit: 6a3afb6ac6dfab158ebdd4b87941178f58c8939f ("jbd2: increase the journal IO's priority")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>
> testcase: fileio
> test machine: 128 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8358 CPU @ 2.60GHz (Ice Lake) with 128G memory
> parameters:
>
> period: 600s
> nr_threads: 100%
> disk: 1HDD
> fs: ext4
> size: 64G
> filenum: 1024f
> rwmode: seqwr
> iomode: sync
> cpufreq_governor: performance
>
>
>
>
> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202401021525.a27b9444-oliver.sang@intel.com
>
>
> Details are as below:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
>
> The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
> https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240102/202401021525.a27b9444-oliver.sang@intel.com
>
> =========================================================================================
> compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/filenum/fs/iomode/kconfig/nr_threads/period/rootfs/rwmode/size/tbox_group/testcase:
> gcc-12/performance/1HDD/1024f/ext4/sync/x86_64-rhel-8.3/100%/600s/debian-11.1-x86_64-20220510.cgz/seqwr/64G/lkp-icl-2sp5/fileio
>
> commit:
> 8555922721 ("jbd2: correct the printing of write_flags in jbd2_write_superblock()")
> 6a3afb6ac6 ("jbd2: increase the journal IO's priority")
>
> 85559227211020b2 6a3afb6ac6dfab158ebdd4b8794
> ---------------- ---------------------------
> %stddev %change %stddev
> \ | \
> 37.99 ± 9% +92.5% 73.13 fileio.latency_95th_ms
> 19872 ± 16% -24.1% 15078 ± 21% numa-meminfo.node1.Active(file)
> 24.74 ± 6% +97.3% 48.81 ± 2% perf-sched.wait_time.avg.ms.kjournald2.kthread.ret_from_fork.ret_from_fork_asm
> 8157448 -5.7% 7691858 ± 2% proc-vmstat.pgpgout
> 13464 -5.7% 12700 ± 2% vmstat.io.bo
> 4968 ± 16% -24.1% 3768 ± 21% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_active_file
> 4968 ± 16% -24.1% 3768 ± 21% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_zone_active_file
> 1413 +2.8% 1452 ± 2% perf-stat.i.cycles-between-cache-misses
> 1.59 -2.9% 1.54 perf-stat.overall.MPKI
> 1368 +2.5% 1402 perf-stat.overall.cycles-between-cache-misses
> 161.13 ± 9% +17.4% 189.23 ± 10% sched_debug.cpu.curr->pid.avg
> 25531 ± 6% -12.4% 22376 ± 8% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.stddev
> -93.66 +38.8% -130.00 sched_debug.cpu.nr_uninterruptible.min
>
>
>
>
> Disclaimer:
> Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
> for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
> design or configuration may affect actual performance.
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-03 3:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-02 7:31 [linus:master] [jbd2] 6a3afb6ac6: fileio.latency_95th_ms 92.5% regression kernel test robot
2024-01-03 3:31 ` Zhang Yi [this message]
2024-01-03 5:53 ` Oliver Sang
2024-01-03 9:49 ` Jan Kara
2024-01-03 13:28 ` Zhang Yi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=dcc72d34-89e1-6181-3556-a1a981256cc6@huawei.com \
--to=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox