On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 4:51 PM Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > hi, Linus, hi, Yafang Shao, > > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 09:05:24AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Oliver, > > is there any chance you could run this through the test robot > > performance suite? The original full patch at > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240515091727.22034-1-laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > and it would be interesting if the test robot could see if the patch > > makes any difference on any other loads? > > > > we just reported a stress-ng performance improvement by this patch [1] Awesome! > > test robot applied this patch upon > 3c999d1ae3 ("Merge tag 'wq-for-6.10' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/wq") > > filesystem is not our team's major domain, so we just made some limited review > of the results, and decided to send out the report FYI. > > at first stage, we decided to check below catagories of tests as priority: > > stress-ng filesystem > filebench mailserver > reaim fileserver > > we also pick sysbench-fileio, blogbench into coverage. > > here is a summary. > > for stress-ng, besided [1] which was reported, we got below data that are > about this patch comparing to 3c999d1ae3. > > either there is no significant performance change, or the change is smaller > than the noise which will make test robot's bisect fail, so these information > is just FYI. and if you have any doubt about any subtests, could you let us know > then we could check further? > > (also included some net test results) > > 12.87 ą 6% -0.6% 12.79 stress-ng.xattr.ops_per_sec > 6721 ą 5% +7.5% 7224 ą 27% stress-ng.rawdev.ops_per_sec > 9002 ą 7% -8.7% 8217 stress-ng.dirmany.ops_per_sec > 8594743 ą 4% -3.0% 8337417 stress-ng.rawsock.ops_per_sec > 2056 ą 3% +2.9% 2116 stress-ng.dirdeep.ops_per_sec > 4307 ą 21% -6.9% 4009 stress-ng.dir.ops_per_sec > 137946 ą 18% +5.8% 145942 stress-ng.fiemap.ops_per_sec > 22413006 ą 2% +2.5% 22982512 ą 2% stress-ng.sockdiag.ops_per_sec > 286714 ą 2% -3.8% 275876 ą 5% stress-ng.udp-flood.ops_per_sec > 82904 ą 46% -31.6% 56716 stress-ng.sctp.ops_per_sec > 9853408 -0.3% 9826387 stress-ng.ping-sock.ops_per_sec > 84667 ą 12% -26.7% 62050 ą 17% stress-ng.dccp.ops_per_sec > 61750 ą 25% -24.2% 46821 ą 38% stress-ng.open.ops_per_sec > 583443 ą 3% -3.4% 563822 stress-ng.file-ioctl.ops_per_sec > 11919 ą 28% -34.3% 7833 stress-ng.dentry.ops_per_sec > 18.59 ą 12% -23.9% 14.15 ą 27% stress-ng.swap.ops_per_sec > 246.37 ą 2% +15.9% 285.58 ą 12% stress-ng.aiol.ops_per_sec > 7.45 -4.8% 7.10 ą 7% stress-ng.fallocate.ops_per_sec > 207.97 ą 7% +5.2% 218.70 stress-ng.copy-file.ops_per_sec > 69.87 ą 7% +5.8% 73.93 ą 5% stress-ng.fpunch.ops_per_sec > 0.25 ą 21% +24.0% 0.31 stress-ng.inode-flags.ops_per_sec > 849.35 ą 6% +1.4% 861.51 stress-ng.mknod.ops_per_sec > 926144 ą 4% -5.2% 877558 stress-ng.lease.ops_per_sec > 82924 -2.1% 81220 stress-ng.fcntl.ops_per_sec > 6.19 ą124% -50.7% 3.05 stress-ng.chattr.ops_per_sec > 676.90 ą 4% -1.9% 663.94 ą 5% stress-ng.iomix.ops_per_sec > 0.93 ą 6% +5.6% 0.98 ą 7% stress-ng.symlink.ops_per_sec > 1703608 -3.8% 1639057 ą 3% stress-ng.eventfd.ops_per_sec > 1735861 -0.6% 1726072 stress-ng.sockpair.ops_per_sec > 85440 -2.0% 83705 stress-ng.rawudp.ops_per_sec > 6198 +0.6% 6236 stress-ng.sockabuse.ops_per_sec > 39226 +0.0% 39234 stress-ng.sock.ops_per_sec > 1358 +0.3% 1363 stress-ng.tun.ops_per_sec > 9794021 -1.7% 9623340 stress-ng.icmp-flood.ops_per_sec > 1324728 +0.3% 1328244 stress-ng.epoll.ops_per_sec > 146150 -2.0% 143231 stress-ng.rawpkt.ops_per_sec > 6381112 -0.4% 6352696 stress-ng.udp.ops_per_sec > 1234258 +0.2% 1236738 stress-ng.sockfd.ops_per_sec > 23954 -0.1% 23932 stress-ng.sockmany.ops_per_sec > 257030 -0.1% 256860 stress-ng.netdev.ops_per_sec > 6337097 +0.1% 6341130 stress-ng.flock.ops_per_sec > 173212 -0.3% 172728 stress-ng.rename.ops_per_sec > 199.69 +0.6% 200.82 stress-ng.sync-file.ops_per_sec > 606.57 +0.8% 611.53 stress-ng.chown.ops_per_sec > 183549 -0.9% 181975 stress-ng.handle.ops_per_sec > 1299 +0.0% 1299 stress-ng.hdd.ops_per_sec > 98371066 +0.2% 98571113 stress-ng.lockofd.ops_per_sec > 25.49 -4.3% 24.39 stress-ng.ioprio.ops_per_sec > 96745191 -1.5% 95333632 stress-ng.locka.ops_per_sec > 582.35 +0.1% 582.86 stress-ng.chmod.ops_per_sec > 2075897 -2.2% 2029552 stress-ng.getdent.ops_per_sec > 60.47 -1.9% 59.34 stress-ng.metamix.ops_per_sec > 14161 -0.3% 14123 stress-ng.io.ops_per_sec > 23.98 -1.5% 23.61 stress-ng.link.ops_per_sec > 27514 +0.0% 27528 stress-ng.filename.ops_per_sec > 44955 +1.6% 45678 stress-ng.dnotify.ops_per_sec > 160.94 +0.4% 161.51 stress-ng.inotify.ops_per_sec > 2452224 +4.0% 2549607 stress-ng.lockf.ops_per_sec > 6761 +0.3% 6779 stress-ng.fsize.ops_per_sec > 775083 -1.5% 763487 stress-ng.fanotify.ops_per_sec > 309124 -4.2% 296285 stress-ng.utime.ops_per_sec > 25567 -0.1% 25530 stress-ng.dup.ops_per_sec > 1858 +0.9% 1876 stress-ng.procfs.ops_per_sec > 105804 -3.9% 101658 stress-ng.access.ops_per_sec > 1.04 -1.9% 1.02 stress-ng.chdir.ops_per_sec > 82753 -0.3% 82480 stress-ng.fstat.ops_per_sec > 681128 +3.7% 706375 stress-ng.acl.ops_per_sec > 11892 -0.1% 11875 stress-ng.bind-mount.ops_per_sec > > > for filebench, similar results, but data is less unstable than stress-ng, which > means for most of them, we regarded them as that they should not be impacted by > this patch. > > for reaim/sysbench-fileio/blogbench, the data are quite stable, and we didn't > notice any significant performance changes. we even doubt whether they go > through the code path changed by this patch. > > so for these, we don't list full results here. > > BTW, besides filesystem tests, this patch is also piped into other performance > test categories such like net, scheduler, mm and others, and since it also goes > into our so-called hourly kernels, it could run by full other performance test > suites which test robot supports. so in following 2-3 weeks, it's still possible > for us to report other results including regression. > That's great. Many thanks for your help. -- Regards Yafang
