Hi Jens, I verified the offsets by using the write_io_log switch. when i use offset increment without patch the offset are incremented and not reset to zero after stone wall. when i use with patch the offset resets to zero after stone wall. I hope you are testing with the patch. If it is so this what the behavior iam also seeing. Thanks, Suresh On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/19/2012 09:32 PM, Suresh Dhanarajan wrote: >> Hi Jens, >> >> I tested with and without stonewall. >> with stonewall the offset is reset to zero for a newjob. >> But without stonewall the offset is not reseting zero. > > How are you verifying that this is the case? I added a debug printf > here, and ran the below job: > > --- > > [global] > numjobs=4 > offset_increment=100m > filename=foo > ioengine=null > size=100g > rw=randread > rate=500m > > [null] > > [null-a] > > [null-b] > stonewall > > [null-c] > > [null-d] > stonewall > > [null-e] > > --- > > Which should give us 4 jobs, then 4 more jobs at continuing offsets, > then null-b at 0 again, null-c at 4*100MB and up, null-d at zero and > null-e identical to null-c. > > job1: file foo offset 0 <- null > job2: file foo offset 104857600 > job3: file foo offset 209715200 > job4: file foo offset 314572800 > job5: file foo offset 419430400 <- null-a > job6: file foo offset 524288000 > job7: file foo offset 629145600 > job8: file foo offset 734003200 > job9: file foo offset 0 <- null-b > job10: file foo offset 104857600 > job11: file foo offset 209715200 > job12: file foo offset 314572800 > job13: file foo offset 419430400 <- null-c > job14: file foo offset 524288000 > job15: file foo offset 629145600 > job16: file foo offset 734003200 > job17: file foo offset 0 <- null-d > job18: file foo offset 104857600 > job19: file foo offset 209715200 > job20: file foo offset 314572800 > job21: file foo offset 419430400 <- null-e > job22: file foo offset 524288000 > job23: file foo offset 629145600 > job24: file foo offset 734003200 > > So it looks like it's working here, at least offset is being calculated > and set correctly. Hence my question on why it isn't working for you. If > you are looking at the actual IO offsets generated, then it's possible > there is a bug somewhere. That bug should, however, also affect the > original patch since this is just changing how we generate them upfront. > > -- > Jens Axboe > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
