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? Best Regards, Huang, Ying