From: Yujie Liu <yujie.liu@intel.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: <oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev>, <lkp@intel.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>,
Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>, <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
<ying.huang@intel.com>, <feng.tang@intel.com>,
<fengwei.yin@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [btrfs] 4ae2edf12d: fio.write_iops -11.9% regression
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:22:36 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZDkNTJfu83DrecW1@yujie-X299> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230414052458.GA11616@lst.de>
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 07:24:58AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 10:01:51AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > kernel test robot noticed a -11.9% regression of fio.write_iops on:
> >
> > commit: 4ae2edf12d49fdbaea2dfda0bb2ec06501bd3493 ("btrfs: simplify parameters of btrfs_lookup_bio_sums")
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>
> Can you revalidate this? The patch is purely a parameter passing
> cleanup, so a large reduction in IOPS looks very suspicious.
Sorry this is a false positive report.
The environment was inconsistent when testing this commit and its
parent. We've revalidated under same environment and confirmed there is
no regression:
=========================================================================================
bs/compiler/cpufreq_governor/direct/disk/fs/ioengine/kconfig/nr_task/rootfs/runtime/rw/tbox_group/test_size/testcase:
4k/gcc-11/performance/direct/1HDD/btrfs/io_uring/x86_64-rhel-8.3/100%/debian-11.1-x86_64-20220510.cgz/300s/write/lkp-icl-2sp1/128G/fio-basic
commit:
5fa356531e33e ("btrfs: remove the direct I/O read checksum lookup optimization")
4ae2edf12d49f ("btrfs: simplify parameters of btrfs_lookup_bio_sums")
5fa356531e33e7c7 4ae2edf12d49fdbaea2dfda0bb2
---------------- ---------------------------
%stddev %change %stddev
\ | \
9370 -0.7% 9309 fio.write_iops
Sorry again for the inconvenience. We will improve our workflow to
reduce false positives.
--
Best Regards,
Yujie
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-14 8:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-14 2:01 kernel test robot
2023-04-14 5:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-14 8:22 ` Yujie Liu [this message]
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=ZDkNTJfu83DrecW1@yujie-X299 \
--to=yujie.liu@intel.com \
--cc=anand.jain@oracle.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®