RE: running jobs serially

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2022-05-19 13:35:02, Vincent Fu wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Antoine Beaupré [mailto:anarcat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

[...]

>> Speaking of which, it's not clear to me if I need to add stonewall to
>> each job or if I can just add it to the top-level global options and be
>> done with it...
>
> The stonewall option is needed only in the global section and will apply
> to all of the jobs.

That's great to hear, thanks. That makes total sense. It can still be
applied only to a single job if I want too, right?

>> So maybe the bug is *just* 1 and 2: (1) the timestamps in the final
>> report are incorrect, and (2) processes are all started at once (and 1
>> may be related to 2!)
>
> The timestamp is actually the time at which the summary output was generated,
> not the time the job started or stopped.
>
> https://github.com/axboe/fio/blob/fio-3.30/stat.c#L1161

Aaah... so that's why I was confused.

Could this be changed? It looks like neither the group_run_stats or the
thread_stat structs have the start timestamps, although thread_stat has
the runtime... Maybe it could be extended so that the display is a
little less confusing?

Or maybe I'm the only one confused by this?

> All of the processes are created when fio starts up but they do not start issuing IO
> until it is their turn.

Couldn't this affect metrics, especially on low-end systems with lots of
jobs? I would think that some processes could end up being swapped in
and out... If a process is stonewalled, I would have assumed it only
*starts* after the stonewall.

-- 
Antoine Beaupré
torproject.org system administration



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux