On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 01:02:16PM +0800, Rong Chen wrote:
>
>
> On 08/01/2018 07:46 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 08:22:25AM +0800, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
> > > On 07/16, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
> > > > On 07/04, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > > > > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfie...@redhat.com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 02:52:43PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > > > > FYI, we noticed a 32.4% improvement of fsmark.files_per_sec due
> > > > > > > to commit:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > commit: 517dc52baa2a508c82f68bbc7219b48169e6b29f ("nfsd4:
> > > > > > > shortern default lease period")
> > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git
> > > > > > > master
> > > > > > That doesn't make any sense....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, I think I see the problem:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > in testcase: fsmark
> > > > > > > on test machine: 48 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2697 v2 @
> > > > > > > 2.70GHz with 64G memory
> > > > > > > with following parameters:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > iterations: 1x
> > > > > > > nr_threads: 1t
> > > > > > > disk: 1BRD_48G
> > > > > > > fs: f2fs
> > > > > > > fs2: nfsv4
> > > > > > > filesize: 4M
> > > > > > > test_size: 40G
> > > > > > > sync_method: fsyncBeforeClose
> > > > > > > cpufreq_governor: performance
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > test-description: The fsmark is a file system benchmark to test
> > > > > > > synchronous write workloads, for example, mail servers workload.
> > > > > > > test-url: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fsmark/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Details are as below:
> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To reproduce:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git
> > > > > > > cd lkp-tests
> > > > > > > bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this
> > > > > > > email
> > > > > > > bin/lkp run job.yaml
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > =========================================================================================
> > > > > > > compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/filesize/fs2/fs/iterations/kconfig/nr_threads/rootfs/sync_method/tbox_group/test_size/testcase:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > gcc-7/performance/1BRD_48G/4M/nfsv4/f2fs/1x/x86_64-rhel-7.2/1t/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/fsyncBeforeClose/ivb44/40G/fsmark
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > commit:
> > > > > > > c2993a1d7d ("nfsd4: extend reclaim period for reclaiming
> > > > > > > clients")
> > > > > > > 517dc52baa ("nfsd4: shortern default lease period")
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > c2993a1d7d6687fd 517dc52baa2a508c82f68bbc72
> > > > > > > ---------------- --------------------------
> > > > > > > %stddev %change %stddev
> > > > > > > \ | \
> > > > > > > 53.60 +32.4% 70.95
> > > > > > > fsmark.files_per_sec
> > > > > > > 191.89 -24.4% 145.16
> > > > > > > fsmark.time.elapsed_time
> > > > > > > 191.89 -24.4% 145.16
> > > > > > > fsmark.time.elapsed_time.max
> > > > > > So what happened is the test took about 45 seconds less.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suspect you're starting the nfs server and then immediately
> > > > > > running
> > > > > > this test.
> > > > > Yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The problem is that if there's a grace period on startup, any open
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > just hang until the grace period ends.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This patch changed the default grace period from 90 seconds to 45,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > that would explain the change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In my testing I usually
> > > > > >
> > > > > > start the nfs server
> > > > > > on the client:
> > > > > > mount the server
> > > > > > touch a file
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When the touch returns, I know any grace period has completed, and
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > I can run any tests normally.
> > > > I've modified our test to touch a file before running the actual
> > > > workload, then
> > > > requeue tests for both commit 517dc52baa and its parent c2993a1d7d, but
> > > > the
> > > > result seems persistent which shows a ~30% improvement of
> > > > fsmark.files_per_sec.
> > > >
> > > Any suggestions?
> > You're sure you only start timing after the "touch" returns?
> The result is normal after retesting, thank you for helping us improve the
> test.
Great, thanks for following up.
--b.
