Sorry I sent out a staging reply, please ignore this. On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 08:33:02AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 06:03:03PM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote: > > hi Gao Xiang, > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 09:33:38AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 09:09:34AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > > > > > > > > please be noted we noticed Gao Xiang and Dave Chinner have already had lots of > > > > discussion around this patch, which seems there is maybe new version later. > > > > we just sent out this report FYI the possible performance impact of this patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > Greeting, > > > > > > > > FYI, we noticed a -15.1% regression of fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works/sec due to commit: > > > > > > Thanks for your report! > > > > > > At a glance, I have no idea why this commit can have performance > > > impacts. Is the result stable? > > > > in our tests, the result is quite stable. > > 45589 -15.1% 38687 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works/sec > > > > and detail data is as below: > > for this commit: > > "fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works/sec": [ > > 39192.224368, > > 39665.690567, > > 38980.680601, > > 37298.99538, > > 37483.256377, > > 39504.606569 > > ], > > > > for parent: > > "fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works/sec": [ > > 45381.458009, > > 45314.376204, > > 45724.688965, > > 45751.955937, > > 45614.323267, > > 45747.216475 > > ], > > > > > > if you still have concern, we could rerun tests. Thanks! > > According to the report, I can see: > 67262 -29.6% 47384 ± 7% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.works/sec > 52786 -15.6% 44567 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.works/sec > 63189 -23.3% 48486 ± 5% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.works/sec I meant allocation strategy change may cause this, but I didn't think it could cause such impact. I will reconfirm on my own side as well. Thanks, Gao Xiang
