Hi, Jaegeuk, "Huang, Ying" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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? We have another 2 regressions - [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression - [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression they are merged by upstream now too. So same questions for them too. Best Regards, Huang, Ying >> in testcase: fsmark >> on test machine: 72 threads Haswell-EP with 128G memory >> with following parameters: > cpufreq_governor=performance/disk=1SSD/filesize=8K/fs=f2fs/iterations=8/nr_directories=16d/nr_files_per_directory=256fpd/nr_threads=4/sync_method=fsyncBeforeClose/test_size=72G >> >> >> >> Disclaimer: >> Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided >> for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or >> software >> design or configuration may affect actual performance. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
