linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Cc: oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com,
	feng.tang@intel.com, fengwei.yin@intel.com
Subject: Re: [linux-next:master] [cpuidle] 38f83090f5: fsmark.app_overhead 51.9% regression
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 16:58:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <01c3073b-84d0-4986-b6d5-a8877ae8a046@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0iyn0==dDNtdxEQpMqGaxa4O_Qr-uRxAq8DzJ+HmtWd5A@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/7/24 16:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 4:44 PM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> kernel test robot noticed a 51.9% regression of fsmark.app_overhead on:
> 
> What exactly is fsmark.app_overhead?  What does it measure?

"App overhead is time in microseconds spent in the test not doing file writing related system calls."
So the loop is:
	/*
	 * MAIN FILE WRITE LOOP:
	 * This loop measures the specific steps in creating files:
	 *      Step 1: Make up a file name
	 *      Step 2: Creat(file_name);
	 *      Step 3: write file data
	 *      Step 4: fsync() file data (optional)
	 *      Step 5: close() file descriptor
	 */

And it gets the timestamps before and after each syscall.
It then subtracts all those times (spent in syscalls) from the total time.
I'll go take a look tomorrow, what's interesting is that the exit-latency
(which is the thing supposed to cause regressions here) should be time
spent blocking on syscalls.
If that is all correct that's the part that shouldn't regress on cpuidle.




  reply	other threads:[~2024-10-07 15:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-10-07 14:43 kernel test robot
2024-10-07 15:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-10-07 15:58   ` Christian Loehle [this message]
2024-10-07 19:07 ` Christian Loehle

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=01c3073b-84d0-4986-b6d5-a8877ae8a046@arm.com \
    --to=christian.loehle@arm.com \
    --cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
    --cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox