From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ve0-f179.google.com (mail-ve0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20B36B0036 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 03:01:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ve0-f179.google.com with SMTP id jw12so961685veb.24 for ; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 00:01:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net. [2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id n7si105442qac.85.2014.01.08.00.01.25 for ; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 00:01:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 00:10:42 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [numa shrinker] 9b17c62382: -36.6% regression on sparse file copy Message-ID: <20140106131042.GA5145@destitution> References: <20140106082048.GA567@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140106082048.GA567@localhost> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: fengguang.wu@intel.com Cc: Glauber Costa , Linux Memory Management List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LKML , lkp@linux.intel.com On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:20:48PM +0800, fengguang.wu@intel.com wrote: > Hi Dave, > > We noticed throughput drop in test case > > vm-scalability/300s-lru-file-readtwice (*) > > between v3.11 and v3.12, and it's still low as of v3.13-rc6: > > v3.11 v3.12 v3.13-rc6 > --------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- > 14934707 ~ 0% -48.8% 7647311 ~ 0% -47.6% 7829487 ~ 0% vm-scalability.throughput > ^^ ^^^^^^ > stddev% change% What does this vm-scalability.throughput number mean? > (*) The test case basically does > > truncate -s 135080058880 /tmp/vm-scalability.img > mkfs.xfs -q /tmp/vm-scalability.img > mount -o loop /tmp/vm-scalability.img /tmp/vm-scalability > > nr_cpu=120 > for i in $(seq 1 $nr_cpu) > do > sparse_file=/tmp/vm-scalability/sparse-lru-file-readtwice-$i > truncate $sparse_file -s 36650387592 > dd if=$sparse_file of=/dev/null & > dd if=$sparse_file of=/dev/null & > done So a page cache load of reading 120x36GB files twice concurrently? There's no increase in system time, so it can't be that the shrinkers are running wild. FWIW, I'm at LCA right now, so it's going to be a week before I can look at this, so if you can find any behavioural difference in the shrinkers (e.g. from perf profiles, on different filesystems, etc) I'd appreciate it... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org