From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2015DC00140 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 14:58:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 909126B0073; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 10:58:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 8B7F28E0001; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 10:58:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 7596D6B0078; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 10:58:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6644E6B0073 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 10:58:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin07.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F86B1A0A1C for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 14:58:21 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79791246402.07.F5DA2D0 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) by imf15.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA2DA009D for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 14:58:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fraeml735-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4M46HP5vnJz685Yk; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 22:58:09 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.191.162.67) by fraeml735-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.216) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 16:58:16 +0200 Received: from [10.48.157.254] (10.48.157.254) by lhrpeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.191.162.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 15:58:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2022 15:58:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 Subject: Re: [ata] 0568e61225: stress-ng.copy-file.ops_per_sec -15.0% regression From: John Garry To: Oliver Sang , Damien Le Moal CC: Christoph Hellwig , "Martin K. Petersen" , LKML , "Linux Memory Management List" , , , , , , , References: <1f498d4a-f93f-ceb4-b713-753196e5e08d@opensource.wdc.com> <3451fa5a-6229-073f-ae18-0c232cd48ed5@huawei.com> <2e9cf5a6-c043-5ccf-e363-097c6c941891@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <2e9cf5a6-c043-5ccf-e363-097c6c941891@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.48.157.254] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.191.162.67) To lhrpeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.191.162.67) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf15.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf15.hostedemail.com: domain of john.garry@huawei.com designates 185.176.79.56 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=john.garry@huawei.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1660316300; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=gguakU+wCBTDj6NvEApg5FTkSgA7mUXRBFLyXlpXN87lvDv2uLjddGzTNMQ8wv2FtyqAbv MW9fMfbNP8wgcRXlvejUBGVedioE7ThazTjN5hYtMpJjYKtdTBSgy+bCjdmK5yogPog/mX eRrzJMoSHkNdC2hPibbik2eEVB4lkvA= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1660316300; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=P3Quls04TiPKkT7fZn5kiqYaxRuJWzW9vopZmJ7BCQ8=; b=MxD6s46igvEj8pwGj0gRVZ0eX9gGEdM8ri7jqd1NHlC9BBKBryD8wX8z4vu7GU86CMCUio QwC9WE+7A/6RXKJ9oC9Wp/DRgNAqFYV22yhms+To9NQYrbmXXsG7v2WorFLSQcAoiPst7U Aj1/Mo+6H/fKz7u6TbnFxNvVKflM/vw= Authentication-Results: imf15.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf15.hostedemail.com: domain of john.garry@huawei.com designates 185.176.79.56 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=john.garry@huawei.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 6DA2DA009D X-Stat-Signature: xd1cabdnbo3gc7p5nnx7s9cxzjb6m8cs X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1660316299-518795 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 12/08/2022 12:13, John Garry wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 07:55:53AM -0700, Damien Le Moal wrote: >>> On 2022/08/09 2:58, John Garry wrote: >>>> On 08/08/2022 15:52, Damien Le Moal wrote: >>>>> On 2022/08/05 1:05, kernel test robot wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Greeting, >>>>>> >>>>>> FYI, we noticed a -15.0% regression of >>>>>> stress-ng.copy-file.ops_per_sec due to commit: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> commit: 0568e6122574dcc1aded2979cd0245038efe22b6 ("ata: >>>>>> libata-scsi: cap ata_device->max_sectors according to >>>>>> shost->max_sectors") >>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git >>>>>> master >>>>>> >>>>>> in testcase: stress-ng >>>>>> on test machine: 96 threads 2 sockets Ice Lake with 256G memory >>>>>> with following parameters: >>>>>> >>>>>>     nr_threads: 10% >>>>>>     disk: 1HDD >>>>>>     testtime: 60s >>>>>>     fs: f2fs >>>>>>     class: filesystem >>>>>>     test: copy-file >>>>>>     cpufreq_governor: performance >>>>>>     ucode: 0xb000280 >>>>> >>>>> Without knowing what the device adapter is, hard to say where the >>>>> problem is. I >>>>> suspect that with the patch applied, we may be ending up with a >>>>> small default >>>>> max_sectors value, causing overhead due to more commands than >>>>> necessary. >>>>> >>>>> Will check what I see with my test rig. >>>> >>>> As far as I can see, this patch should not make a difference unless the >>>> ATA shost driver is setting the max_sectors value unnecessarily low. >>> >>> That is my hunch too, hence my question about which host driver is >>> being used >>> for this test... That is not apparent from the problem report. >> >> we noticed the commit is already in mainline now, and in our tests, >> there is >> still similar regression and also on other platforms. >> could you guide us how to check "which host driver is being used for this >> test"? hope to supply some useful information. >> > > For me, a complete kernel log may help. and since only 1HDD, the output of the following would be helpful: /sys/block/sda/queue/max_sectors_kb /sys/block/sda/queue/max_hw_sectors_kb And for 5.19, if possible. Thanks! > >>> >>>>