mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@intel.com>
To: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, lkp@01.org
Subject: Re: [xfs] 610125ab1e: fsmark.app_overhead -71.2% improvement
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 14:06:54 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <df5f4105-58a9-492d-882e-0963fd5cb23f@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190909053236.GP2254@rh>

Hi Dave,

On 9/9/19 1:32 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 09:58:49AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> Greeting,
>>
>> FYI, we noticed a -71.2% improvement of fsmark.app_overhead due to commit:
> A negative improvement? That's somewhat ambiguous...

Sorry for causing the misunderstanding, it's a improvement not a regression.


>
>> 0e822255f95db400 610125ab1e4b1b48dcffe74d9d8
>> ---------------- ---------------------------
>>           %stddev     %change         %stddev
>>               \          |                \
>>   1.095e+08           -71.2%   31557568        fsmark.app_overhead
>>        6157           +95.5%      12034        fsmark.files_per_sec
> So, the files/s rate doubled, and the amount of time spent in
> userspace by the fsmark app dropped by 70%.
>
>>      167.31           -47.3%      88.25        fsmark.time.elapsed_time
>>      167.31           -47.3%      88.25        fsmark.time.elapsed_time.max
> Wall time went down by 50%.
>
>>       91.00            -8.8%      83.00        fsmark.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
>>      148.15           -53.2%      69.38        fsmark.time.system_time
> As did system CPU.
>
> IOWs, this change has changed create performance by a factor of 4 -
> the file create is 2x faster for half the CPU spent.
>
> I don't think this is a negative improvement - it's a large positive
> improvement.  I suspect that you need to change the metric
> classifications for this workload...
To avoid misunderstanding, we'll use fsmark.files_per_sec instead of 
fsmark.app_overhead in the subject.

Best Regards,
Rong Chen

  reply	other threads:[~2019-09-09  6:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-09  1:58 kernel test robot
2019-09-09  5:32 ` Dave Chinner
2019-09-09  6:06   ` Rong Chen [this message]
2019-09-09  6:20     ` Dave Chinner

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=df5f4105-58a9-492d-882e-0963fd5cb23f@intel.com \
    --to=rong.a.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@01.org \
    /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®