From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756727AbcI0AuP (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:50:15 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:14631 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754852AbcI0AuG (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:50:06 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,402,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="1036873069" From: "Huang\, Ying" To: Jaegeuk Kim Cc: "Huang\, Ying" , Fengguang Wu , LKP ML , huang ying , LKML , Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression References: <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> <20160830023048.GA2088@jaegeuk> <87pooqnr4t.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com> <87fuoni3cx.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> <20160926182353.GA33149@jaegeuk> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 08:50:02 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20160926182353.GA33149@jaegeuk> (Jaegeuk Kim's message of "Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:23:53 -0700") Message-ID: <8760pii2th.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Best Regards, Huang, Ying