From: Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com>
To: Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@intel.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Matthew Bobrowski <mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
Cc: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [ext4] b1b4705d54: filebench.sum_bytes_mb/s -20.2% regression
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 16:15:38 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7ec6b078-7b09-fb87-8ad2-a328e96c5bf9@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fde1ad11-c9b0-4393-a123-3f7625c819fa@intel.com>
Hi Matthew,
We test it in v5.6-rc4, the issue still exist, do you have time to
take a look at this? Thanks.
On 1/8/2020 10:31 AM, Rong Chen wrote:
>
>
> On 1/8/20 1:28 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
>> On Tue 07-01-20 11:57:08, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 02:41:06PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue 24-12-19 08:59:15, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>>> FYI, we noticed a -20.2% regression of filebench.sum_bytes_mb/s due
>>>>> to commit:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> commit: b1b4705d54abedfd69dcdf42779c521aa1e0fbd3 ("ext4: introduce
>>>>> direct I/O read using iomap infrastructure")
>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>>>>>
>>>>> in testcase: filebench
>>>>> on test machine: 8 threads Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz
>>>>> with 8G memory
>>>>> with following parameters:
>>>>>
>>>>> disk: 1HDD
>>>>> fs: ext4
>>>>> test: fivestreamreaddirect.f
>>>>> cpufreq_governor: performance
>>>>> ucode: 0x27
>>>> I was trying to reproduce this but I failed with my test VM. I had
>>>> SATA SSD
>>>> as a backing store though so maybe that's what makes a difference.
>>>> Maybe
>>>> the new code results in somewhat more seeks because the five threads
>>>> which
>>>> compete in submitting sequential IO end up being more interleaved?
>>> A "-20.2% regression" should be read as a "20.2% performance
>>> improvement" is zero-day kernel speak.
>> Are you sure? I can see:
>>
>> 58.30 ± 2% -20.2% 46.53 filebench.sum_bytes_mb/s
>>
>> which implies to me previously the throughput was 58 MB/s and after the
>> commit it was 46 MB/s?
>>
>> Anyway, in my testing that commit made no difference in that benchmark
>> whasoever (getting around 97 MB/s for each thread before and after the
>> commit).
>> Honza
>
> We're sorry for the misunderstanding, "-20.2%" means the change of
> filebench.sum_bytes_mb/s,
> "regression" means the explanation of this change from LKP.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rong Chen
> _______________________________________________
> LKP mailing list -- lkp@lists.01.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to lkp-leave@lists.01.org
--
Zhengjun Xing
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-04 8:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-24 0:59 [ext4] b1b4705d54: filebench.sum_bytes_mb/s -20.2% regression kernel test robot
2020-01-07 13:41 ` Jan Kara
2020-01-07 16:57 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-01-07 17:28 ` Jan Kara
2020-01-08 2:31 ` Rong Chen
2020-03-04 8:15 ` Xing Zhengjun [this message]
2020-03-25 5:50 ` [LKP] " Xing Zhengjun
2020-03-25 14:31 ` Jan Kara
2020-04-15 7:55 ` Xing Zhengjun
2020-04-15 8:39 ` Jan Kara
2020-04-16 5:48 ` Xing Zhengjun
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=7ec6b078-7b09-fb87-8ad2-a328e96c5bf9@linux.intel.com \
--to=zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
--cc=mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org \
--cc=riteshh@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=rong.a.chen@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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