On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:14:57AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > 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?
Still in my to-do list. Let you know, if I can get some info. Thanks, > > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying
