On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 05:59:22PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > 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. Apologize for this limitation. We have some mid-term TODO list to allow the verification of reported issue (start from build report) for fix patch. We will consider runtime side as well per this input to provide a better experience. And we can start with a controlled scope like to queue the test in the report, so test suite/parameters/platform is in a manageable manner. Thanks for the input.
