On 06/26/2017 08:06 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 09:36:14AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 06/23/2017 08:29 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: >>> From: Omar Sandoval <osandov@xxxxxx> >>> >>> This test-case performs I/O with fio while doing PCI disable/enable >>> cycles. >>> >>> In the results we don't care for I/O errors but for hiccups in dmesg only. >> >> Let's get this in, that would be a very useful test. A few comments - >> not necessarily on this patch in particular, but for future cleanups >> and improvements. >> >>> + if _test_dev_is_rotational; then >>> + size="32m" >>> + else >>> + size="1g" >>> + fi >> >> I introduced this idea in one of my previous patches. I wonder if we >> should turn that into a helper. Pass in the dev, get returned a >> suitable fio size, instead of hard coding this in each job that >> needs it. > > Sure. > >> >>> + # start fio job >>> + _run_fio --bs=4k --rw=randread --norandommap \ >>> + --name=reads --filename="$TEST_DEV" --size="$size" \ >>> + --numjobs=8 --direct=1 2>/dev/null & >> >> I don't believe we check for fio errors right now, but we probably >> should in the future. So I think you'd want to add something ala: >> >> --ignore_error=EIO,ENXIO,ENODEV >> >> to your options to make it explicit that you don't care about IO >> errors for this test. > > Oh nice, didn't know about the option. Btw as we're currently all have > arbitrary values for the numjobs parameter, how about a wrapper over getconf > _NPROCESSORS_ONLN? Yes that's a good idea, then we can at least size the jobs based on how many cores we have. -- Jens Axboe
