From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Huang\, Ying" Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:14:57 +0800 Message-ID: <87bmy15hvy.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> References: <87vaz6yl8a.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <20160812012238.GA47037@jaegeuk> <20160827005257.GD88444@jaegeuk> <20160827021334.eb3xpz57xvo37g5l@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <20160830023048.GA2088@jaegeuk> <87pooqnr4t.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <87fuoni3cx.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> <20160926182353.GA33149@jaegeuk> <8760pii2th.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> <20160927014138.GB35593@jaegeuk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1c133z-0007eV-27 for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 03:15:07 +0000 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1c133x-00006j-KP for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 03:15:07 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20160927014138.GB35593@jaegeuk> (Jaegeuk Kim's message of "Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:41:38 -0700") List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: LKP ML , LKML , linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, "Huang, Ying" , Fengguang Wu , huang ying Hi, Kim, Jaegeuk Kim writes: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:50:02AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: >> Jaegeuk Kim writes: >> >> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: >> >> Hi, Jaegeuk, >> >> >> >> "Huang, Ying" writes: >> >> >> >> > Jaegeuk Kim writes: >> >> > >> >> >> 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. >> >> > >> >> > I think the difference lies on disk used. The ramdisk is used in the >> >> > original test, but it appears that your memory is too small to setup the >> >> > RAM disk for test. So it may be impossible for you to reproduce the >> >> > test unless you can find more memory :) >> >> > >> >> > But we can help you to root cause the issue. What additional data do >> >> > you want? perf-profile data before and after the patch? >> >> >> >> Any update to this regression? >> > >> > Sorry, no. But meanwhile, I've purchased more DRAMs. :) >> > Now I'm with 128GB DRAM. I can configure 64GB as pmem. >> > Is it worth to try the test again? >> >> I think you are the decision maker for this. You can judge whether the >> test is reasonable. And we can adjust our test accordingly. >> >> BTW: For this test, we use brd ram disk and raid to test. > > Okay, let me try this again. Any update on this? Best Regards, Huang, Ying ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise? Reconnect with the command line and become more productive. Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy! http://sdm.link/telerik