linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1 0/1] nvme testsuite runtime optimization

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:34:55 +0000
From:   Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>
To:     Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>,
        Shin'ichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro@...tmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 0/1] nvme testsuite runtime optimization

On 4/19/23 01:56, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> While testing the fc transport I got a bit tired of wait for the I/O jobs to
> finish. Thus here some runtime optimization.
>
> With a small/slow VM I got following values:
>
> with 'optimizations'
>    loop:
>      real    4m43.981s
>      user    0m17.754s
>      sys     2m6.249s
>
>    rdma:
>      real    2m35.160s
>      user    0m6.264s
>      sys     0m56.230s
>
>    tcp:
>      real    2m30.391s
>      user    0m5.770s
>      sys     0m46.007s
>
>    fc:
>      real    2m19.738s
>      user    0m6.012s
>      sys     0m42.201s
>
> base:
>    loop:
>      real    7m35.061s
>      user    0m23.493s
>      sys     2m54.866s
>
>    rdma:
>      real    8m29.347s
>      user    0m13.078s
>      sys     1m53.158s
>
>    tcp:
>      real    8m11.357s
>      user    0m13.033s
>      sys     2m43.156s
>
>    fc:
>      real    5m46.615s
>      user    0m12.819s
>      sys     1m46.338s
>
>

Those jobs are meant to be run for at least 1G to establish
confidence on the data set and the system under test since SSDs
are in TBs nowadays and we don't even get anywhere close to that,
with your suggestion we are going even lower ...

we cannot change the dataset size for slow VMs, instead add
a command line argument and pass it to tests e.g.
nvme_verification_size=XXX similar to nvme_trtype but don't change
the default values which we have been testing for years now

Testing is supposed to be time consuming especially verification jobs..

-ck