On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:02:24AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:47:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > I had tested XFS with earlier releases and noticed no major problems > > > so later releases tested only one filesystem. Given the changes since, > > > a retest is desirable. I've posted the current version of the series but > > > I'll queue the tests to run over the weekend. They are quite time consuming > > > to run unfortunately. > > > > Understood. I'm not following the patchset all that closely, so I > > didn' know you'd already tested XFS. > > > > It was needed anyway. Not all of them completed over the weekend. In > particular, the NUMA machine is taking its time because many of the > workloads are scaled by memory size and it takes longer. > > > > On the fsmark configuration, I configured the test to use 4K files > > > instead of 0-sized files that normally would be used to stress inode > > > creation/deletion. This is to have a mix of page cache and slab > > > allocations. Shout if this does not suit your expectations. > > > > Sounds fine. I usually limit that test to 10 million inodes - that's > > my "10-4" test. > > > > Thanks. > > > I'm not going to go through most of the results in detail. The raw data > is verbose and not necessarily useful in most cases. Yup, numbers look pretty good and all my concerns have gone away. Thanks for testing, Mel! :P Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>