On 06/29/2017 05:40 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]> > --- > tests/block/004 | 2 +- > tests/block/005 | 2 +- > tests/block/006 | 2 +- > tests/block/008 | 2 +- > tests/block/011 | 2 +- > 5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/block/004 b/tests/block/004 > index 754d30260d63..2dc0f25b27cc 100755 > --- a/tests/block/004 > +++ b/tests/block/004 > @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ test_device() { > > FIO_PERF_FIELDS=("write iops") > _fio_perf --bs=4k --rw=randwrite --norandommap --fsync=1 \ > - --number_ios=256 --numjobs=64 --name=flushes \ > + --number_ios=256 --numjobs=$(nproc) --name=flushes \ > --filename="$TEST_DEV"
NAK on this bit. Let's use the nproc for cases that just want a random suitable workload for their machine. For flush, the idea here is to use a ton of flushes. This has shown bugs in the past, like this for instance: commit 7520872c0cf4d3df6d74242c6edfb9e70a47df4d Author: Jens Axboe <[email protected]> Date: Fri Feb 17 11:40:44 2017 -0700 block: don't defer flushes on blk-mq + scheduling For the other tests in your patch, the change looks fine. But I would greatly prefer if we just turned that into a __run_fio_mix or similar command, since the jobs should basically be identical. -- Jens Axboe
