On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 11:54:26PM +0800, Philip Li wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 03:12:22PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2023, at 4:33 PM, Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jul 17, 2023, at 2:46 AM, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> hi, Chuck Lever, > > >> > > >> we reported a 3.0% improvement of stress-ng.handle.ops_per_sec for this commit > > >> on > > >> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202307132153.a52cdb2d-oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx/ > > >> > > >> but now we noticed a regression, detail as below, FYI > > >> > > >> Hello, > > >> > > >> kernel test robot noticed a -15.5% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops on: > > >> > > >> > > >> commit: a1a690e009744e4526526b2f838beec5ef9233cc ("[PATCH v7 3/3] shmem: stable directory offsets") > > >> url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Chuck-Lever/libfs-Add-directory-operations-for-stable-offsets/20230701-014925 > > >> base: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git mm-everything > > >> patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/168814734331.530310.3911190551060453102.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > >> patch subject: [PATCH v7 3/3] shmem: stable directory offsets > > >> > > >> testcase: will-it-scale > > >> test machine: 104 threads 2 sockets (Skylake) with 192G memory > > >> parameters: > > >> > > >> nr_task: 16 > > >> mode: thread > > >> test: unlink2 > > >> cpufreq_governor: performance > > >> > > >> > > >> In addition to that, the commit also has significant impact on the following tests: > > >> > > >> +------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > >> | testcase: change | will-it-scale: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -40.0% regression | > > >> | test machine | 36 threads 1 sockets Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-10980XE CPU @ 3.00GHz (Cascade Lake) with 128G memory | > > >> | test parameters | cpufreq_governor=performance | > > >> | | mode=thread | > > >> | | nr_task=16 | > > >> | | test=unlink2 | > > >> +------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > >> | testcase: change | stress-ng: stress-ng.handle.ops_per_sec 3.0% improvement | > > >> | test machine | 36 threads 1 sockets Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-9980XE CPU @ 3.00GHz (Skylake) with 32G memory | > > >> | test parameters | class=filesystem | > > >> | | cpufreq_governor=performance | > > >> | | disk=1SSD | > > >> | | fs=ext4 | > > >> | | nr_threads=10% | > > >> | | test=handle | > > >> | | testtime=60s | > > >> +------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > >> > > >> > > >> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of > > >> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags > > >> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202307171436.29248fcf-oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx > > >> > > >> > > >> Details are as below: > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > >> > > >> > > >> To reproduce: > > >> > > >> git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git > > >> cd lkp-tests > > >> sudo bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email > > > > Has anyone from the lkp or ltp teams had a chance to look at this? > > I'm stuck without this reproducer. > > Sorry about this that fedora is not fully supported now [1]. A possible way > is to run the test inside docker [2]. But we haven't fully tested the > reproduce steps in docker yet, which is in our TODO list. Also a concern is > that docker environment probably can't reproduce the performance regression. > > For now, not sure whether it is convenient for you to have a ubuntu or debian > environment to give a try? Another alternative is if you have new patch, we > can assist to verify it on our machines. So while we have your attention here. I've asked this a while ago in another mail: It would be really really helpful if there was a way for us to ask/trigger a perf test run for specific branches/patches we suspect of being performance sensitive. It's a bit of a shame that we have no simple way of submitting a custom job and get performance results reported. I know that resources for this are probably scarce but some way to at least request it would be really really nice.
