linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:30:48 -0700
From:   Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To:     Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:     huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, LKP ML <lkp@...org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [f2fs] ec795418c4: fsmark.files_per_sec -36.3%
 regression

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.

Thanks,