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

[Huang\, Ying]

Hi, Jaegeuk,

"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> 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 <xiaolong.ye@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
>>