Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753640AbbDWBgk (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:36:40 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:14680 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753241AbbDWBgh (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:36:37 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,627,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="713978607" Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:38:01 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Chris Mason Cc: Yuanhan Liu , lkp@01.org, LKML Subject: performance changes on c9dc4c65: 9.8% fsmark.files_per_sec Message-ID: <20150423013801.GP8084@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 8468 Lines: 133 FYI, we found performance increasement, which is expected as commit patch says, on `fsmark.files_per_sec' by c9dc4c6578502c2085705347375b82089aad18d0: > commit c9dc4c6578502c2085705347375b82089aad18d0 > Author: Chris Mason > AuthorDate: Sat Apr 4 17:14:42 2015 -0700 > Commit: Chris Mason > CommitDate: Fri Apr 10 14:07:11 2015 -0700 > > Btrfs: two stage dirty block group writeout 4c6d1d85ad89fd8e32dc9204b7f944854399bda9 c9dc4c6578502c2085705347375b82089aad18d0 ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- run time(m) metric_value ?stddev run time(m) metric_value ?stddev change testbox/benchmark/testcase-params --- ------ ---------------------------- --- ------ ---------------------------- -------- ------------------------------ 3 7.3 |35.267| ?0.5 5 6.6 |38.740| ?1.6 9.8% ivb44/fsmark/1x-1t-1HDD-btrfs-4M-60G-NoSync NOTE: here are some more explanation about those test parameters for you to know what the testcase does better: 1x: where 'x' means iterations or loop, corresponding to the 'L' option of fsmark 1t, 64t: where 't' means thread 4M: means the single file size, corresponding to the '-s' option of fsmark 60G: means the total test size And FYI, here are more changes by the same commit: 4c6d1d85ad89fd8e c9dc4c6578502c208570534737 ---------------- -------------------------- %stddev %change %stddev \ | \ 9864 ? 2% +156.9% 25345 ? 4% fsmark.time.voluntary_context_switches 9 ? 0% +17.8% 10 ? 4% fsmark.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got 462211 ? 1% +16.8% 539707 ? 0% fsmark.app_overhead 35.27 ? 0% +9.8% 38.74 ? 1% fsmark.files_per_sec 435 ? 0% -9.0% 396 ? 1% fsmark.time.elapsed_time.max 435 ? 0% -9.0% 396 ? 1% fsmark.time.elapsed_time 5.20 ? 2% -70.3% 1.54 ? 6% turbostat.Pkg%pc6 2447873 ? 42% -67.9% 785086 ? 33% numa-numastat.node1.numa_hit 2413662 ? 43% -68.1% 771115 ? 31% numa-numastat.node1.local_node 9864 ? 2% +156.9% 25345 ? 4% time.voluntary_context_switches 187680 ? 10% +126.8% 425676 ? 7% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_dirty 747361 ? 9% +127.8% 1702809 ? 7% numa-meminfo.node1.Dirty 1787510 ? 1% +117.0% 3878984 ? 2% meminfo.Dirty 446861 ? 1% +117.0% 969472 ? 2% proc-vmstat.nr_dirty 1655962 ? 37% -59.3% 673988 ? 29% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_local 1036191 ? 8% +110.3% 2179311 ? 3% numa-meminfo.node0.Dirty 259069 ? 8% +110.3% 544783 ? 3% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_dirty 1687987 ? 37% -58.6% 698626 ? 29% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_hit 1 ? 0% +100.0% 2 ? 0% vmstat.procs.b 0.02 ? 0% +100.0% 0.04 ? 22% turbostat.CPU%c3 6.03 ? 1% +76.9% 10.67 ? 1% turbostat.CPU%c1 5.189e+08 ? 0% +72.6% 8.956e+08 ? 1% cpuidle.C1-IVT.time 2646692 ? 7% +75.0% 4630890 ? 23% cpuidle.C3-IVT.time 5301 ? 6% -31.7% 3620 ? 3% slabinfo.btrfs_ordered_extent.active_objs 10549 ? 16% -30.3% 7349 ? 12% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_slab_reclaimable 5353 ? 6% -31.4% 3670 ? 3% slabinfo.btrfs_ordered_extent.num_objs 42169 ? 16% -30.3% 29397 ? 12% numa-meminfo.node1.SReclaimable 1619825 ? 22% +39.4% 2258188 ? 4% proc-vmstat.pgfree 4611 ? 7% -28.0% 3318 ? 1% slabinfo.btrfs_delayed_ref_head.num_objs 4471 ? 8% -27.0% 3264 ? 2% slabinfo.btrfs_delayed_ref_head.active_objs 67.93 ? 1% -24.7% 51.15 ? 4% turbostat.Pkg%pc2 2332975 ? 21% +45.6% 3396446 ? 4% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_other 2300949 ? 22% +46.5% 3371807 ? 4% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_miss 2300941 ? 22% +46.5% 3371793 ? 4% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_foreign 2952 ? 8% -23.3% 2263 ? 3% slabinfo.btrfs_delayed_data_ref.num_objs 2570716 ? 3% +25.7% 3230157 ? 2% numa-meminfo.node1.Writeback 642367 ? 3% +25.7% 807533 ? 2% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_writeback 95408 ? 13% -17.3% 78910 ? 6% numa-meminfo.node1.Slab 2803 ? 7% -21.1% 2210 ? 3% slabinfo.btrfs_delayed_data_ref.active_objs 240 ? 9% +23.1% 295 ? 16% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_page_table_pages 4626942 ? 19% +49.6% 6924087 ? 22% cpuidle.C1E-IVT.time 5585235 ? 0% +25.5% 7011242 ? 0% meminfo.Writeback 1396232 ? 0% +25.5% 1752892 ? 0% proc-vmstat.nr_writeback 962 ? 9% +23.0% 1184 ? 16% numa-meminfo.node0.PageTables 9 ? 0% +17.8% 10 ? 4% time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got 754027 ? 2% +25.2% 944312 ? 1% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_writeback 3018674 ? 2% +25.1% 3777338 ? 1% numa-meminfo.node0.Writeback 23509 ? 1% -16.9% 19530 ? 0% slabinfo.kmalloc-1024.active_objs 2972 ? 1% +21.4% 3607 ? 0% proc-vmstat.nr_alloc_batch 13956 ? 4% -15.6% 11773 ? 8% slabinfo.kmalloc-192.active_objs 743 ? 1% -16.0% 624 ? 0% slabinfo.kmalloc-1024.active_slabs 743 ? 1% -16.0% 624 ? 0% slabinfo.kmalloc-1024.num_slabs 23790 ? 1% -16.0% 19983 ? 0% slabinfo.kmalloc-1024.num_objs 68983 ? 2% +19.1% 82190 ? 4% softirqs.RCU 222 ? 11% +47.0% 326 ? 25% cpuidle.POLL.usage 14177 ? 0% +17.8% 16702 ? 1% slabinfo.kmalloc-2048.num_objs 14045 ? 0% +18.0% 16568 ? 1% slabinfo.kmalloc-2048.active_objs 885 ? 0% +17.8% 1043 ? 1% slabinfo.kmalloc-2048.num_slabs 885 ? 0% +17.8% 1043 ? 1% slabinfo.kmalloc-2048.active_slabs 14025 ? 4% -13.3% 12157 ? 7% slabinfo.kmalloc-192.num_objs 8287205 ? 10% +16.0% 9611684 ? 0% numa-numastat.node0.numa_hit 8276795 ? 10% +15.9% 9592682 ? 0% numa-numastat.node0.local_node 2615463 ? 5% -9.6% 2365256 ? 2% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_written 1814 ? 5% -12.7% 1584 ? 11% numa-meminfo.node1.PageTables 453 ? 5% -12.6% 396 ? 11% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_page_table_pages 105943 ? 6% +13.6% 120352 ? 2% numa-meminfo.node0.SReclaimable 26492 ? 6% +13.6% 30086 ? 2% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_slab_reclaimable 0.41 ? 1% +17.1% 0.48 ? 4% time.user_time 2155 ? 4% -11.1% 1916 ? 5% slabinfo.btrfs_delayed_tree_ref.active_objs 2.028e+10 ? 0% -11.1% 1.803e+10 ? 1% cpuidle.C6-IVT.time 2155 ? 4% -10.8% 1922 ? 5% slabinfo.btrfs_delayed_tree_ref.num_objs 1202 ? 4% -11.2% 1067 ? 9% slabinfo.btrfs_trans_handle.num_objs 1202 ? 4% -11.2% 1067 ? 9% slabinfo.btrfs_trans_handle.active_objs 192641 ? 5% +9.8% 211569 ? 2% numa-meminfo.node0.Slab 268137 ? 0% +12.2% 300911 ? 2% cpuidle.C6-IVT.usage 435 ? 0% -9.0% 396 ? 1% time.elapsed_time 435 ? 0% -9.0% 396 ? 1% time.elapsed_time.max 21057 ? 0% -9.0% 19165 ? 1% uptime.idle 29.89 ? 0% +37.2% 41.01 ? 3% turbostat.CorWatt 59.95 ? 0% +19.6% 71.69 ? 2% turbostat.PkgWatt 18873 ? 0% +14.9% 21692 ? 1% vmstat.system.cs 21 ? 2% +8.8% 23 ? 3% turbostat.Avg_MHz 135 ? 0% +9.1% 147 ? 0% iostat.sda.avgqu-sz 0.69 ? 2% +7.2% 0.74 ? 3% turbostat.%Busy 7478 ? 0% +5.1% 7861 ? 0% iostat.sda.await 7478 ? 0% +5.1% 7861 ? 0% iostat.sda.w_await 239 ? 0% +3.6% 247 ? 0% iostat.sda.wrqm/s 3.54 ? 0% +3.9% 3.68 ? 0% turbostat.RAMWatt 129619 ? 0% +3.2% 133743 ? 0% vmstat.io.bo 128667 ? 0% +1.9% 131056 ? 0% iostat.sda.wkB/s --yliu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/