Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1512302 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-31 04:20 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-10-31 18:50 +0100 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
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.
Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> - 2016-10-31 04:20 +0100
Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> - 2016-10-31 18:50 +0100
| From | "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 04:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression |
| Message-ID | <sybiF-5ce-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi, Kim, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> writes: > 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. Any update on this? Best Regards, Huang, Ying
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 18:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression |
| Message-ID | <syoSB-5vG-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1512302 |
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:14:57AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > Hi, Kim, > > Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> writes: > > > 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. > > Any update on this? Still in my to-do list. Let you know, if I can get some info. Thanks, > > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web