Jaegeuk Kim <jaeg...@kernel.org> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:44:20AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Jaegeuk Kim <jaeg...@kernel.org> writes:
>>
>> > Hi Huang,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> >> Hi, Jaegeuk,
>> >>
>> >> "Huang, Ying" <ying.hu...@intel.com> writes:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > I checked the comparison result below and found this is a regression for
>> >> > fsmark.files_per_sec, not fsmark.app_overhead.
>> >> >
>> >> > Best Regards,
>> >> > Huang, Ying
>> >> >
>> >> > kernel test robot <xiaolong...@intel.com> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> FYI, we noticed a -36.3% regression of fsmark.files_per_sec due to
>> >> >> commit:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> commit ec795418c41850056feb956534edf059dc1155d4 ("f2fs: use
>> >> >> percpu_rw_semaphore")
>> >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jaegeuk/f2fs.git
>> >> >> dev-test
>> >>
>> >> I found this has been merged by upstream. Do you have some plan to fix
>> >> it? Or you think the test itself has some problem?
>> >
>> > Sorry, too busy to take a look at this.
>> > The patch implements percpu_rw_semaphore which is intended to enhance FS
>> > scalability. Since I couldn't see any big regression in my test cases,
>> > could you
>> > check any debugging options which may give some overheads?
>>
>> The kernel config related with F2FS is as follow in our test,
>>
>> CONFIG_F2FS_FS=m
>> CONFIG_F2FS_STAT_FS=y
>> CONFIG_F2FS_FS_XATTR=y
>> CONFIG_F2FS_FS_POSIX_ACL=y
>> # CONFIG_F2FS_FS_SECURITY is not set
>> # CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS is not set
>> # CONFIG_F2FS_FS_ENCRYPTION is not set
>> # CONFIG_F2FS_IO_TRACE is not set
>> # CONFIG_F2FS_FAULT_INJECTION is not set
>>
>> What do you think we need to change? Or do you mean some other
>> debugging options? Anyway, you can check our kernel config attached.
>>
>> > Let me recheck this with whole my tests.
>>
>> Maybe you can try our kernel config? Or if our kernel config is not
>> reasonable, can you help us to revise it? The full kernel config we
>> used is attached with the email.
>
> I could reproduce the fsmark regression in my machine and confirm there is
> another small regression as well.
> I'll revert this patch. Thank you.
>
> [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
> [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression
>
> In terms of the above regression, I could check that _reproduce_ procedure
> includes mounting filesystem only. Is that correct?
Sorry, our test system failed to generate reproduce steps for aim7. We
will implement it.
- [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
The disk is one 48G ram disk. The steps for aim7 is,
cat > workfile <<EOF
FILESIZE: 1M
POOLSIZE: 10M
10 disk_cp
EOF
(
echo $HOSTNAME
echo disk_cp
echo 1
echo 3000
echo 2
echo 3000
echo 1
) | ./multitask -t &
- [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 &
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
