Hi, Kim, Jaegeuk Kim <jaeg...@kernel.org> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:50:02AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: >> Jaegeuk Kim <jaeg...@kernel.org> writes: >> >> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: >> >> Hi, Jaegeuk, >> >> >> >> "Huang, Ying" <ying.hu...@intel.com> writes: >> >> >> >> > Jaegeuk Kim <jaeg...@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
