On 06/29/2017 05:40 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> tests/block/004 | 2 +-
> tests/block/005 | 2 +-
> tests/block/006 | 2 +-
> tests/block/008 | 2 +-
> tests/block/011 | 2 +-
> 5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/block/004 b/tests/block/004
> index 754d30260d63..2dc0f25b27cc 100755
> --- a/tests/block/004
> +++ b/tests/block/004
> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ test_device() {
>
> FIO_PERF_FIELDS=("write iops")
> _fio_perf --bs=4k --rw=randwrite --norandommap --fsync=1 \
> - --number_ios=256 --numjobs=64 --name=flushes \
> + --number_ios=256 --numjobs=$(nproc) --name=flushes \
> --filename="$TEST_DEV"
NAK on this bit. Let's use the nproc for cases that just want a random
suitable workload for their machine. For flush, the idea here is to
use a ton of flushes. This has shown bugs in the past, like this
for instance:
commit 7520872c0cf4d3df6d74242c6edfb9e70a47df4d
Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri Feb 17 11:40:44 2017 -0700
block: don't defer flushes on blk-mq + scheduling
For the other tests in your patch, the change looks fine. But I would
greatly prefer if we just turned that into a
__run_fio_mix
or similar command, since the jobs should basically be identical.
--
Jens Axboe
