From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pj1-f43.google.com (mail-pj1-f43.google.com [209.85.216.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBF3C185955 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 04:57:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.43 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737435449; cv=none; b=YGwrFTGAteD3qYuImxUwiOtnTozK2zVauVcdARsjPp8ioTWN+ofqfyKPfVcIZXe8KWdtficfyGLqwUybQgIyPYlSUmGY3heOyKAvAX4ojZxDo/QM6Wg7H6lUsKs6zGpj1g01aTviD01xp0WMVoGthlCkM3RLrdaTbp21q3rUYeo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737435449; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LzvpGy2HNylNqYLESYhqcy8f4XRjmR0j3QvxMkvSXsY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=sojcyJ8tmp0PWmPI678swMOiv3HKkuv2Mu3Vwiblk+yAF/G9XGGSIaee2A9gEvaxb3oT3BlvrR1ZGw9UgQez3Y++ECuXOeG3GjWf90CpMUnau1rzJboHALQKSZUjtk445SpJFZ0frhRB2ISmOjMUDnS3Dt9Nqt/+cUtGJopxeYc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=fromorbit.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fromorbit.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fromorbit-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@fromorbit-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b=ikATPIqf; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.216.43 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=fromorbit.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fromorbit.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fromorbit-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@fromorbit-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="ikATPIqf" Received: by mail-pj1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2ee50ffcf14so9535359a91.0 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2025 20:57:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fromorbit-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1737435446; x=1738040246; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NaRd5BEXgLjUdSaPBhNbMRK8odD+++vFhADndLtd+k0=; b=ikATPIqf/VBJi2jHsAgiT+Sulg37Hna4OCZSsEWE0OIOu92rHGPEmek89nBozSKxgz F89Ezclc2GuT0z9tD5qcdCo95/7OMsyPoF1JT+RUTNDMNrXvUeuc1MRDWxn/YHD+LKP2 IG+2fW5KbHDJ5kyEFb5pu5hpV+eM8z0bw+39LjzQi/RkF22JA8Uac/AjSvlcTglGkDsB u1gwqcEbKloVdljCwiBgz79QkVrl3suEW1V2VdkPco6d949cPUBA1VJprY9CrDBVJhG4 HhaK5uwDW6+/8XuHzGBqr2FZpedjuUPk2MjYx0NzCOBBaujCKcq8HmGF0FJWms9mnxzO EYMg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1737435446; x=1738040246; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=NaRd5BEXgLjUdSaPBhNbMRK8odD+++vFhADndLtd+k0=; b=EmURDfNJKlTYQPS7CZ3u2pgn+z7YaWHWHAxveFHJNChrbo46allF86MgFof+h2kfkX LNvI46DKw1TXrhlq972nkClmOwWeNoBr+KSFIzy/IM/FkvgbHOfNQuVfe5wb5xRselsK YHT9Q+UoF8WXVCbeY4IrW7g9pEMlZ+N47UVt23HS1o27U8ZAPgw0BOICqpnWAKLdWbNz Ce3ctIVvkfBIXmnFJqG7UW5jvr1KzPO7/mCimucW/JFXJygWBoHbpheS5DQ1oy+QlvC7 UFydJFyojjZBxvtE35q3qXD5uMXRy8PmyxYSn22FHz/kcw7b/n+SMV136Prw0SDHj8Gg i4Bg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCV5KUeuguTR6bggz5X6yohAnumgZh12KWfMwCs8ttwuQsYQllAUn584NHeCk3WV8iYny2gNS6CePZc=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyEQsqZYiZQ5K40BFzMULtGpCpdSn0zJmusHlzMcfiBhg5KJHgt zsEawfDNd7FyAX2tyxx1xdkQyIsthBXbhLCs+h9vkzrbsRrsT8qUyXznNUyn3pM= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncusiZmitpcOVHaXRb2crXg6D3OkzmoCaWMZtGigiUKYuAtmclF68wnSTx/VMUJ IPhE/9naIIs601gppw3CcCSLu9wl+PhNGKSuzRU/NdASzPxXIWoOjXBSJDP/0YI+0n1d21XEWc4 DFEsr4co+9ChTydYtdA0vIF2fMzgkSM/dQkCrm/wQEmIPEuRpAtPpNIIWwh74DYj47J+NU/sgl2 fJ3zx6pJSY7uUuicAu9Lq9WLg4AcJSVlLO0lV2/NVdRytu29tfMbvO9LXlDU7cBa1fxfISTngcX zb9/NhGuVoiZsDI2ZCtJlcKvUCq1v0OwyeY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHhUqsc5fp8YYPRrWEpYufjZNCM5fX19GmjtVEHcajApdFhV8lx2dEjw5EYrDkpAuYMz/bKFg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:4c87:b0:729:1c0f:b94e with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-72db1b6524bmr21997706b3a.6.1737435445976; Mon, 20 Jan 2025 20:57:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from dread.disaster.area (pa49-186-89-135.pa.vic.optusnet.com.au. [49.186.89.135]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-72dab8155e5sm8098496b3a.54.2025.01.20.20.57.25 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 20 Jan 2025 20:57:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from dave by dread.disaster.area with local (Exim 4.98) (envelope-from ) id 1ta6KJ-00000008XAi-0E4i; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 15:57:23 +1100 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 15:57:23 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: zlang@redhat.com, hch@lst.de, fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/23] generic/650: revert SOAK DURATION changes Message-ID: References: <173706974044.1927324.7824600141282028094.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <173706974273.1927324.11899201065662863518.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <173706974273.1927324.11899201065662863518.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 03:28:33PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > From: Darrick J. Wong > > Prior to commit 8973af00ec21, in the absence of an explicit > SOAK_DURATION, this test would run 2500 fsstress operations each of ten > times through the loop body. On the author's machines, this kept the > runtime to about 30s total. Oddly, this was changed to 30s per loop > body with no specific justification in the middle of an fsstress process > management change. I'm pretty sure that was because when you run g/650 on a machine with 64p, the number of ops performed on the filesystem is nr_cpus * 2500 * nr_loops. In that case, each loop was taking over 90s to run, so the overall runtime was up in the 15-20 minute mark. I wanted to cap the runtime of each loop to min(nr_ops, SOAK_DURATION) so that it ran in about 5 minutes in the worst case i.e. (nr_loops * SOAK_DURATION). I probably misunderstood how -n nr_ops vs --duration=30 interact; I expected it to run until either were exhausted, not for duration to override nr_ops as implied by this: > On the author's machine, this explodes the runtime from ~30s to 420s. > Put things back the way they were. Yeah, OK, that's exactly waht keep_running() does - duration overrides nr_ops. Ok, so keeping or reverting the change will simply make different people unhappy because of the excessive runtime the test has at either ends of the CPU count spectrum - what's the best way to go about providing the desired min(nr_ops, max loop time) behaviour? Do we simply cap the maximum process count to keep the number of ops down to something reasonable (e.g. 16), or something else? -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com