Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:14:57AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Kim,
> 
> Jaegeuk Kim  writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:50:02AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> Jaegeuk Kim  writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> >> Hi, Jaegeuk,
> >> >> 
> >> >> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Jaegeuk Kim  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 < >> >> >>> > > >> > 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

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:14:57AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Kim,
> 
> Jaegeuk Kim  writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:50:02AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> Jaegeuk Kim  writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> >> Hi, Jaegeuk,
> >> >> 
> >> >> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Jaegeuk Kim  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 < >> >> >>> > > >> > 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

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Huang, Ying]

Hi, Kim,

Jaegeuk Kim  writes:

> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:50:02AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Jaegeuk Kim  writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> >> Hi, Jaegeuk,
>> >> 
>> >> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > Jaegeuk Kim  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 <> >> >>> > > >> > 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

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Huang, Ying]

Hi, Kim,

Jaegeuk Kim  writes:

> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:50:02AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Jaegeuk Kim  writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> >> Hi, Jaegeuk,
>> >> 
>> >> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > Jaegeuk Kim  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 <> >> >>> > > >> > 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

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:50:02AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Jaegeuk Kim  writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> Hi, Jaegeuk,
> >> 
> >> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
> >> 
> >> > Jaegeuk Kim  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 < >> >>> > > >> > 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.
Thanks,

> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:50:02AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Jaegeuk Kim  writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> Hi, Jaegeuk,
> >> 
> >> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
> >> 
> >> > Jaegeuk Kim  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 < >> >>> > > >> > 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.
Thanks,

> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Huang, Ying]

Jaegeuk Kim  writes:

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Hi, Jaegeuk,
>> 
>> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
>> 
>> > Jaegeuk Kim  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 <> >>> > > >> > 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.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Huang, Ying]

Jaegeuk Kim  writes:

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Hi, Jaegeuk,
>> 
>> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
>> 
>> > Jaegeuk Kim  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 <> >>> > > >> > 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.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Jaegeuk,
> 
> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
> 
> > Jaegeuk Kim  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 < >>> > > >> > 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?

Thanks,

> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Jaegeuk,
> 
> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
> 
> > Jaegeuk Kim  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 < >>> > > >> > 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?

Thanks,

> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Huang, Ying]

Hi, Jaegeuk,

"Huang, Ying"  writes:

> Jaegeuk Kim  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 <>> > > >> > 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?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Huang, Ying]

Hi, Jaegeuk,

"Huang, Ying"  writes:

> Jaegeuk Kim  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 <>> > > >> > 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?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Huang, Ying]

Jaegeuk Kim  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 <> > > >> > 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?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Huang, Ying]

Jaegeuk Kim  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 <> > > >> > 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?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

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 < > > >> > 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.

Thanks,

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

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 < > > >> > 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.

Thanks,

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Fengguang Wu]

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 <> > 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

Thanks,
Fengguang

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Fengguang Wu]

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 <> > 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

Thanks,
Fengguang

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 09:51:11AM -0700, huang ying wrote:
> Hi, Jaegeuk,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Jaegeuk Kim  wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 03:49:41PM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> Hi, Kim,
> >>
> >> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
> >> >> [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression
> >> >>
> >> >> In terms of the above regression, I could check that _reproduce_ 
> >> >> procedure
> >> >> includes mounting filesystem only. Is that correct?
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, our test system failed to generate reproduce steps for aim7.  We
> >> > will implement it.
> >> >
> >> > - [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
> >> >
> >> > The disk is one 48G ram disk.  The steps for aim7 is,
> >> >
> >> > cat > workfile < >> > FILESIZE: 1M
> >> > POOLSIZE: 10M
> >> > 10 disk_cp
> >> > EOF
> >> >
> >> > (
> >> > echo $HOSTNAME
> >> > echo disk_cp
> >> >
> >> > echo 1
> >> > echo 3000
> >> > echo 2
> >> > echo 3000
> >> > echo 1
> >> > ) | ./multitask -t &
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > - [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 < >> > 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?

Thanks,

> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 09:51:11AM -0700, huang ying wrote:
> Hi, Jaegeuk,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Jaegeuk Kim  wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 03:49:41PM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> Hi, Kim,
> >>
> >> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
> >> >> [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression
> >> >>
> >> >> In terms of the above regression, I could check that _reproduce_ 
> >> >> procedure
> >> >> includes mounting filesystem only. Is that correct?
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, our test system failed to generate reproduce steps for aim7.  We
> >> > will implement it.
> >> >
> >> > - [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
> >> >
> >> > The disk is one 48G ram disk.  The steps for aim7 is,
> >> >
> >> > cat > workfile < >> > FILESIZE: 1M
> >> > POOLSIZE: 10M
> >> > 10 disk_cp
> >> > EOF
> >> >
> >> > (
> >> > echo $HOSTNAME
> >> > echo disk_cp
> >> >
> >> > echo 1
> >> > echo 3000
> >> > echo 2
> >> > echo 3000
> >> > echo 1
> >> > ) | ./multitask -t &
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > - [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 < >> > 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?

Thanks,

> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[huang ying]

Hi, Jaegeuk,

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Jaegeuk Kim  wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 03:49:41PM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Hi, Kim,
>>
>> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
>> >>
>> >> [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
>> >> [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression
>> >>
>> >> In terms of the above regression, I could check that _reproduce_ procedure
>> >> includes mounting filesystem only. Is that correct?
>> >
>> > Sorry, our test system failed to generate reproduce steps for aim7.  We
>> > will implement it.
>> >
>> > - [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
>> >
>> > The disk is one 48G ram disk.  The steps for aim7 is,
>> >
>> > cat > workfile <> > FILESIZE: 1M
>> > POOLSIZE: 10M
>> > 10 disk_cp
>> > EOF
>> >
>> > (
>> > echo $HOSTNAME
>> > echo disk_cp
>> >
>> > echo 1
>> > echo 3000
>> > echo 2
>> > echo 3000
>> > echo 1
>> > ) | ./multitask -t &
>> >
>> >
>> > - [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 <> > 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?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[huang ying]

Hi, Jaegeuk,

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Jaegeuk Kim  wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 03:49:41PM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Hi, Kim,
>>
>> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
>> >>
>> >> [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
>> >> [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression
>> >>
>> >> In terms of the above regression, I could check that _reproduce_ procedure
>> >> includes mounting filesystem only. Is that correct?
>> >
>> > Sorry, our test system failed to generate reproduce steps for aim7.  We
>> > will implement it.
>> >
>> > - [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
>> >
>> > The disk is one 48G ram disk.  The steps for aim7 is,
>> >
>> > cat > workfile <> > FILESIZE: 1M
>> > POOLSIZE: 10M
>> > 10 disk_cp
>> > EOF
>> >
>> > (
>> > echo $HOSTNAME
>> > echo disk_cp
>> >
>> > echo 1
>> > echo 3000
>> > echo 2
>> > echo 3000
>> > echo 1
>> > ) | ./multitask -t &
>> >
>> >
>> > - [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 <> > 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?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 03:49:41PM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Kim,
> 
> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
> >>
> >> [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
> >> [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression
> >>
> >> In terms of the above regression, I could check that _reproduce_ procedure
> >> includes mounting filesystem only. Is that correct?
> >
> > Sorry, our test system failed to generate reproduce steps for aim7.  We
> > will implement it.
> >
> > - [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
> >
> > The disk is one 48G ram disk.  The steps for aim7 is,
> >
> > cat > workfile < > FILESIZE: 1M
> > POOLSIZE: 10M
> > 10 disk_cp
> > EOF
> >
> > (
> > echo $HOSTNAME
> > echo disk_cp
> >
> > echo 1
> > echo 3000
> > echo 2
> > echo 3000
> > echo 1
> > ) | ./multitask -t &
> >
> >
> > - [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 < > 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.

Thanks,

> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 03:49:41PM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Kim,
> 
> "Huang, Ying"  writes:
> >>
> >> [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
> >> [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression
> >>
> >> In terms of the above regression, I could check that _reproduce_ procedure
> >> includes mounting filesystem only. Is that correct?
> >
> > Sorry, our test system failed to generate reproduce steps for aim7.  We
> > will implement it.
> >
> > - [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
> >
> > The disk is one 48G ram disk.  The steps for aim7 is,
> >
> > cat > workfile < > FILESIZE: 1M
> > POOLSIZE: 10M
> > 10 disk_cp
> > EOF
> >
> > (
> > echo $HOSTNAME
> > echo disk_cp
> >
> > echo 1
> > echo 3000
> > echo 2
> > echo 3000
> > echo 1
> > ) | ./multitask -t &
> >
> >
> > - [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 < > 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.

Thanks,

> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Huang, Ying]

Hi, Kim,

"Huang, Ying"  writes:
>>
>> [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
>> [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression
>>
>> In terms of the above regression, I could check that _reproduce_ procedure
>> includes mounting filesystem only. Is that correct?
>
> Sorry, our test system failed to generate reproduce steps for aim7.  We
> will implement it.
>
> - [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
>
> The disk is one 48G ram disk.  The steps for aim7 is,
>
> cat > workfile < FILESIZE: 1M
> POOLSIZE: 10M
> 10 disk_cp
> EOF
>
> (
>   echo $HOSTNAME
>   echo disk_cp
>
>   echo 1
>   echo 3000
>   echo 2
>   echo 3000
>   echo 1
> ) | ./multitask -t &
>
>
> - [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 < 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?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Huang, Ying]

Hi, Kim,

"Huang, Ying"  writes:
>>
>> [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
>> [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression
>>
>> In terms of the above regression, I could check that _reproduce_ procedure
>> includes mounting filesystem only. Is that correct?
>
> Sorry, our test system failed to generate reproduce steps for aim7.  We
> will implement it.
>
> - [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
>
> The disk is one 48G ram disk.  The steps for aim7 is,
>
> cat > workfile < FILESIZE: 1M
> POOLSIZE: 10M
> 10 disk_cp
> EOF
>
> (
>   echo $HOSTNAME
>   echo disk_cp
>
>   echo 1
>   echo 3000
>   echo 2
>   echo 3000
>   echo 1
> ) | ./multitask -t &
>
>
> - [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 < 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?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Huang, Ying]

Jaegeuk Kim  writes:

> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:44:20AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Jaegeuk Kim  writes:
>> 
>> > Hi Huang,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> >> Hi, Jaegeuk,
>> >> 
>> >> "Huang, Ying"  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  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?
>> >
>> > Sorry, too busy to take a look at this.
>> > The patch implements percpu_rw_semaphore which is intended to enhance FS
>> > scalability. Since I couldn't see any big regression in my test cases, 
>> > could you
>> > check any debugging options which may give some overheads?
>> 
>> The kernel config related with F2FS is as follow in our test,
>> 
>> CONFIG_F2FS_FS=m
>> CONFIG_F2FS_STAT_FS=y
>> CONFIG_F2FS_FS_XATTR=y
>> CONFIG_F2FS_FS_POSIX_ACL=y
>> # CONFIG_F2FS_FS_SECURITY is not set
>> # CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS is not set
>> # CONFIG_F2FS_FS_ENCRYPTION is not set
>> # CONFIG_F2FS_IO_TRACE is not set
>> # CONFIG_F2FS_FAULT_INJECTION is not set
>> 
>> What do you think we need to change?  Or do you mean some other
>> debugging options?  Anyway, you can check our kernel config attached.
>> 
>> > Let me recheck this with whole my tests.
>> 
>> Maybe you can try our kernel config?  Or if our kernel config is not
>> reasonable, can you help us to revise it?  The full kernel config we
>> used is attached with the email.
>
> I could reproduce the fsmark regression in my machine and confirm there is
> another small regression as well.
> I'll revert this patch. Thank you.
>
> [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
> [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression
>
> In terms of the above regression, I could check that _reproduce_ procedure
> includes mounting filesystem only. Is that correct?

Sorry, our test system failed to generate reproduce steps for aim7.  We
will implement it.

- [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression

The disk is one 48G ram disk.  The steps for aim7 is,

cat > workfile < workfile <

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Huang, Ying]

Jaegeuk Kim  writes:

> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:44:20AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Jaegeuk Kim  writes:
>> 
>> > Hi Huang,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> >> Hi, Jaegeuk,
>> >> 
>> >> "Huang, Ying"  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  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?
>> >
>> > Sorry, too busy to take a look at this.
>> > The patch implements percpu_rw_semaphore which is intended to enhance FS
>> > scalability. Since I couldn't see any big regression in my test cases, 
>> > could you
>> > check any debugging options which may give some overheads?
>> 
>> The kernel config related with F2FS is as follow in our test,
>> 
>> CONFIG_F2FS_FS=m
>> CONFIG_F2FS_STAT_FS=y
>> CONFIG_F2FS_FS_XATTR=y
>> CONFIG_F2FS_FS_POSIX_ACL=y
>> # CONFIG_F2FS_FS_SECURITY is not set
>> # CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS is not set
>> # CONFIG_F2FS_FS_ENCRYPTION is not set
>> # CONFIG_F2FS_IO_TRACE is not set
>> # CONFIG_F2FS_FAULT_INJECTION is not set
>> 
>> What do you think we need to change?  Or do you mean some other
>> debugging options?  Anyway, you can check our kernel config attached.
>> 
>> > Let me recheck this with whole my tests.
>> 
>> Maybe you can try our kernel config?  Or if our kernel config is not
>> reasonable, can you help us to revise it?  The full kernel config we
>> used is attached with the email.
>
> I could reproduce the fsmark regression in my machine and confirm there is
> another small regression as well.
> I'll revert this patch. Thank you.
>
> [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
> [lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression
>
> In terms of the above regression, I could check that _reproduce_ procedure
> includes mounting filesystem only. Is that correct?

Sorry, our test system failed to generate reproduce steps for aim7.  We
will implement it.

- [lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression

The disk is one 48G ram disk.  The steps for aim7 is,

cat > workfile < workfile <

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:44:20AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Jaegeuk Kim  writes:
> 
> > Hi Huang,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> Hi, Jaegeuk,
> >> 
> >> "Huang, Ying"  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  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?
> >
> > Sorry, too busy to take a look at this.
> > The patch implements percpu_rw_semaphore which is intended to enhance FS
> > scalability. Since I couldn't see any big regression in my test cases, 
> > could you
> > check any debugging options which may give some overheads?
> 
> The kernel config related with F2FS is as follow in our test,
> 
> CONFIG_F2FS_FS=m
> CONFIG_F2FS_STAT_FS=y
> CONFIG_F2FS_FS_XATTR=y
> CONFIG_F2FS_FS_POSIX_ACL=y
> # CONFIG_F2FS_FS_SECURITY is not set
> # CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS is not set
> # CONFIG_F2FS_FS_ENCRYPTION is not set
> # CONFIG_F2FS_IO_TRACE is not set
> # CONFIG_F2FS_FAULT_INJECTION is not set
> 
> What do you think we need to change?  Or do you mean some other
> debugging options?  Anyway, you can check our kernel config attached.
> 
> > Let me recheck this with whole my tests.
> 
> Maybe you can try our kernel config?  Or if our kernel config is not
> reasonable, can you help us to revise it?  The full kernel config we
> used is attached with the email.

I could reproduce the fsmark regression in my machine and confirm there is
another small regression as well.
I'll revert this patch. Thank you.

[lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
[lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression

In terms of the above regression, I could check that _reproduce_ procedure
includes mounting filesystem only. Is that correct?

Thanks,

> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
> 
> > Thanks,
> >
> >> 
> >> 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.
> >> >>
> 

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:44:20AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Jaegeuk Kim  writes:
> 
> > Hi Huang,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> Hi, Jaegeuk,
> >> 
> >> "Huang, Ying"  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  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?
> >
> > Sorry, too busy to take a look at this.
> > The patch implements percpu_rw_semaphore which is intended to enhance FS
> > scalability. Since I couldn't see any big regression in my test cases, 
> > could you
> > check any debugging options which may give some overheads?
> 
> The kernel config related with F2FS is as follow in our test,
> 
> CONFIG_F2FS_FS=m
> CONFIG_F2FS_STAT_FS=y
> CONFIG_F2FS_FS_XATTR=y
> CONFIG_F2FS_FS_POSIX_ACL=y
> # CONFIG_F2FS_FS_SECURITY is not set
> # CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS is not set
> # CONFIG_F2FS_FS_ENCRYPTION is not set
> # CONFIG_F2FS_IO_TRACE is not set
> # CONFIG_F2FS_FAULT_INJECTION is not set
> 
> What do you think we need to change?  Or do you mean some other
> debugging options?  Anyway, you can check our kernel config attached.
> 
> > Let me recheck this with whole my tests.
> 
> Maybe you can try our kernel config?  Or if our kernel config is not
> reasonable, can you help us to revise it?  The full kernel config we
> used is attached with the email.

I could reproduce the fsmark regression in my machine and confirm there is
another small regression as well.
I'll revert this patch. Thank you.

[lkp] [f2fs] 3bdad3c7ee: aim7.jobs-per-min -25.3% regression
[lkp] [f2fs] b93f771286: aim7.jobs-per-min -81.2% regression

In terms of the above regression, I could check that _reproduce_ procedure
includes mounting filesystem only. Is that correct?

Thanks,

> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
> 
> > Thanks,
> >
> >> 
> >> 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.
> >> >>
> 

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

Hi Huang,

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Jaegeuk,
> 
> "Huang, Ying"  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  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?

Sorry, too busy to take a look at this.
The patch implements percpu_rw_semaphore which is intended to enhance FS
scalability. Since I couldn't see any big regression in my test cases, could you
check any debugging options which may give some overheads?

Let me recheck this with whole my tests.

Thanks,

> 
> 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.
> >>

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Jaegeuk Kim]

Hi Huang,

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Jaegeuk,
> 
> "Huang, Ying"  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  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?

Sorry, too busy to take a look at this.
The patch implements percpu_rw_semaphore which is intended to enhance FS
scalability. Since I couldn't see any big regression in my test cases, could you
check any debugging options which may give some overheads?

Let me recheck this with whole my tests.

Thanks,

> 
> 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.
> >>

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Huang, Ying]

Hi, Jaegeuk,

"Huang, Ying"  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  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.
>>

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3% regression

[Huang, Ying]

Hi, Jaegeuk,

"Huang, Ying"  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  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.
>>