Sorry for the late response, had to deal with a lot of high prio stuff... On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:36:17AM +0000, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote: > On May 17, 2023 / 04:44, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: > > On 5/11/23 07:09, Daniel Wagner wrote: > > > _nvme_calc_run_io_size() returns the jobs size for _run_fio_rand_io() > > > function. The jobs size is the size per job, thus we have to divide > > > through the number of CPUs. > > > > sorry I didn't understand why we have to divide through number of > > CPUs ? isn't tht will change the current job size of the test ? > > > > unless we are increasing somewhere which I missed it . > > This change reduces the I/O size per job, but it keeps the total I/O size > regardless of the number of CPUs. This will keep test case runtime reasonable > on systems with hundreds of CPUs. Yes, indeed. > As for the test case nvme/045, it tests re-authentication. I don't think it > requires total I/O size proportional to number of CPUs. As for the test case > nvme/047, it exercises different queue types (write queue and poll queue). Does > it require total I/O size proportional to number of CPUs? Daniel is the test > case author, and I guessed he is ok with the change. Yes :) Thanks for applying these patches!
