On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 02:06:42PM +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 02:01 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report > > of recent regressions. > > > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > > from 2.6.30. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know > > (either way). > > > > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13726 > > Subject : fio sync read 4k block size 35% regression > > Submitter : Zhang, Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2009-07-01 11:25 (6 days old) > > First-Bad-Commit: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=51daa88ebd8e0d437289f589af29d4b39379ea76 > > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/30/679 > > Handled-By : Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> > Fengguang, > > I'm still working on it now. The new testing against 2.6.31-rc2 is ongoing. > fio sync/mmap read has new behavior. I did collect some data. But suddenly > with new created data, the fio_sync_read_4k regression disappeared, while > fio_mmap_read is still there. Originally, the testing and bisect were stable. > Let me check what happens firstly. OK, thank you for the update. > Just update. > > How did you test your new readahead patches before sending to LKML? I run various workloads and check if the readahead traces are abnormal. In this regression case, the readahead traces are in fact normal :) Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
