Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1491083 > unrolled thread

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@linux.intel.com> - 2016-09-26 08:30 +0200
    Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3%  regression Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> - 2016-09-26 20:30 +0200
      Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> - 2016-09-27 03:00 +0200
        Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3%  regression Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> - 2016-09-27 03:50 +0200

#1491083 — Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

Hi, Jaegeuk,

"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:

> Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> 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 <<EOF
>>> > > >> > 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?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1491497 — Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Jaegeuk,
> 
> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
> 
> > Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> 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 <<EOF
> >>> > > >> > 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?

Thanks,

> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1491629

Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Hi, Jaegeuk,
>> 
>> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> 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 <<EOF
>> >>> > > >> > 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1491643 — Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:50:02AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> Hi, Jaegeuk,
> >> 
> >> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> 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 <<EOF
> >> >>> > > >> > 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.
Thanks,

> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web