On 8/30/2019 8:43 AM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 8/7/2019 3:56 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 7/24/2019 1:17 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 7/12/2019 2:42 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Trond,
I attached perf-profile part big changes, hope it is useful for
analyzing the issue.
Ping...
On 8/7/2019 3:56 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 7/24/2019 1:17 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 7/12/2019 2:42 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Trond,
I attached perf-profile part big changes, hope it is useful for
analyzing the issue.
Ping...
ping...
ping...
In testcase: fsmark
on
On 7/24/2019 1:17 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 7/12/2019 2:42 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Trond,
I attached perf-profile part big changes, hope it is useful for
analyzing the issue.
Ping...
ping...
In testcase: fsmark
on test machine: 40 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690
On 7/12/2019 2:42 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Trond,
I attached perf-profile part big changes, hope it is useful for
analyzing the issue.
Ping...
In testcase: fsmark
on test machine: 40 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz
with 384G memory
with following
Hi Trond,
I attached perf-profile part big changes, hope it is useful for
analyzing the issue.
In testcase: fsmark
on test machine: 40 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz
with 384G memory
with following parameters:
iterations: 20x
nr_threads: 64t
Hi Trond,
On 7/8/2019 7:44 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
I've asked several times now about how to interpret your results. As far
as I can tell from your numbers, the overhead appears to be entirely
contained in the NUMA section of your results.
IOW: it would appear to be a scheduling overhead
Hi Trond,
I retest, it still can be reproduced. I test with the following
parameters, only change "nr_threads", the test results are as the
following. From the test results, more threads in the test, more
regression will happen. Could you help to check? Thanks.
In testcase: fsmark
on
On 5/31/2019 3:10 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 15:20 +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 5/30/2019 10:00 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
Hi Xing,
On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 09:35 +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Trond,
On 5/20/2019 1:54 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI,
On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 15:20 +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
>
> On 5/30/2019 10:00 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > Hi Xing,
> >
> > On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 09:35 +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
> > > Hi Trond,
> > >
> > > On 5/20/2019 1:54 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > Greeting,
> > > >
> > > >
On 5/30/2019 10:00 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
Hi Xing,
On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 09:35 +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Trond,
On 5/20/2019 1:54 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a 16.0% improvement of fsmark.app_overhead due to
commit:
commit:
Hi Xing,
On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 09:35 +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
> Hi Trond,
>
> On 5/20/2019 1:54 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
> > Greeting,
> >
> > FYI, we noticed a 16.0% improvement of fsmark.app_overhead due to
> > commit:
> >
> >
> > commit: 0472e476604998c127f3c80d291113e77c5676ac
Hi Trond,
On 5/20/2019 1:54 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a 16.0% improvement of fsmark.app_overhead due to commit:
commit: 0472e476604998c127f3c80d291113e77c5676ac ("SUNRPC: Convert socket page send
code to use iov_iter()")
12 matches
Mail list logo
