On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:49 PM, kernel test robot
<[email protected]> wrote:
> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> commit ceb5d58b217098a657f3850b7a2640f995032e62 ("net: fix sock_wake_async() rcu protection")
>
>
> =========================================================================================
> compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/filesize/fs2/fs/iterations/kconfig/nr_threads/rootfs/sync_method/tbox_group/test_size/testcase:
> gcc-4.9/performance/1BRD_48G/4M/nfsv4/xfs/1x/x86_64-rhel/64t/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/NoSync/lkp-hsx04/40G/fsmark
>
> commit:
> 9cd3e072b0be17446e37d7414eac8a3499e0601e
> ceb5d58b217098a657f3850b7a2640f995032e62
>
> 9cd3e072b0be1744 ceb5d58b217098a657f3850b7a
> ---------------- --------------------------
> %stddev %change %stddev
> Thanks,
> Ying Huang
Hi Ying. I have no idea what these confusing numbers mean.
Is your benchmark running faster (good thing) or slower (sorry, but we
fixed a bug)
Thanks.
Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:49 PM, kernel test robot
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>> commit ceb5d58b217098a657f3850b7a2640f995032e62 ("net: fix sock_wake_async() rcu protection")
>>
>>
>> =========================================================================================
>> compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/filesize/fs2/fs/iterations/kconfig/nr_threads/rootfs/sync_method/tbox_group/test_size/testcase:
>> gcc-4.9/performance/1BRD_48G/4M/nfsv4/xfs/1x/x86_64-rhel/64t/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/NoSync/lkp-hsx04/40G/fsmark
>>
>> commit:
>> 9cd3e072b0be17446e37d7414eac8a3499e0601e
>> ceb5d58b217098a657f3850b7a2640f995032e62
>>
>> 9cd3e072b0be1744 ceb5d58b217098a657f3850b7a
>> ---------------- --------------------------
>> %stddev %change %stddev
>
>> Thanks,
>> Ying Huang
>
> Hi Ying. I have no idea what these confusing numbers mean.
>
> Is your benchmark running faster (good thing) or slower (sorry, but we
> fixed a bug)
The benchmark running slower now. This has big impact on performance,
maybe we can find some clue to optimize from the test result? The
benchmark is about file IO performance on a loop back mounted NFS.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying