From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jaegeuk Kim Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:30:48 -0700 Message-ID: <20160830023048.GA2088@jaegeuk> References: <87bn18cvuu.fsf_-_@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <20160804172452.GA12093@jaegeuk> <874m70ctu3.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <20160804185251.GA13813@jaegeuk> <87r3a4b7b6.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <87vaz6yl8a.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <20160812012238.GA47037@jaegeuk> <20160827005257.GD88444@jaegeuk> <20160827021334.eb3xpz57xvo37g5l@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160827021334.eb3xpz57xvo37g5l@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Fengguang Wu Cc: huang ying , LKML , linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, LKP ML List-Id: linux-f2fs-devel.lists.sourceforge.net Hello, On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:13:34AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > Hi Jaegeuk, > > > > >> > - [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression > > > >> > > > > >> > The disk is 4 12G ram disk, and setup RAID0 on them via mdadm. The > > > >> > steps for aim7 is, > > > >> > > > > >> > cat > workfile < > > >> > FILESIZE: 1M > > > >> > POOLSIZE: 10M > > > >> > 10 sync_disk_rw > > > >> > EOF > > > >> > > > > >> > ( > > > >> > echo $HOSTNAME > > > >> > echo sync_disk_rw > > > >> > > > > >> > echo 1 > > > >> > echo 600 > > > >> > echo 2 > > > >> > echo 600 > > > >> > echo 1 > > > >> > ) | ./multitask -t & > > > >> > > > >> Any update on these 2 regressions? Is the information is enough for you > > > >> to reproduce? > > > > > > > > Sorry, I've had no time to dig this due to business travel now. > > > > I'll check that when back to US. > > > > > > Any update? > > > > Sorry, how can I get multitask binary? > > It's part of aim7, which can be downloaded here: > > http://nchc.dl.sourceforge.net/project/aimbench/aim-suite7/Initial%20release/s7110.tar.Z Thank you for the codes. I've run this workload on the latest f2fs and compared performance having without the reported patch. (1TB nvme SSD, 16 cores, 16GB DRAM) Interestingly, I could find slight performance improvement rather than regression. :( Not sure how to reproduce this. Thanks,