Received: by 2002:a05:6358:9144:b0:117:f937:c515 with SMTP id r4csp453671rwr; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 01:35:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Z1X6+ZwVr42iskQ3E0r9mEx73h56PDauSyo1zJrqFpdvAht4zXMenmMYicqjS/BZg3JeBK X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:2d2a:b0:63b:8324:df with SMTP id fa42-20020a056a002d2a00b0063b832400dfmr736973pfb.0.1681979723508; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 01:35:23 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1681979723; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=OMYALwgaQPDYGSRjr/rSKId7jKD1vANoKdNkShj40lAnaXL+zOk/URJvNwRCEGcP7B CGTPIY5V+hK6aeL/RaUdLv1ZqIVeIXtuNxcNSp9jY9cFzs4u14IuNZkxlClNZnVDAQzP o2OMwKD0evWfbyqDNBwOgBFLTb72y3a14dSW5juYmd/Z52qSHhJxmU5w0PAFRWdMJQsq 8ztaCQH1jz35ZulRraUgr9LoMxGDYcZ7po8R2KBh6hjbB45Oph8DPZRwc7iQY8wyQizu G/CRcBDvvNcCu2KcjG1fFl0EQnvrc897BrmJ76OLK9Eov2QD78NGxfTMyaMDcdP+o8cX 89bg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature :dkim-signature; bh=QiP5e/+4S7KnMOT6XDJPynS4EU6xSJzZUOwhN1ceQZ4=; b=ySpZZZ/8iOqdVu9apiC8SO+6yA37JHoYNLtCdDSJpHo/d60xdjkQeUj6jU0+/xccHE bXd7g2QSslcR0sd6P+fEA6TmUFQSbsZjh3Csu3eq7mw2oUMYRv5QzwXFaOqOw+ipqTA0 aWE9IxFpRdM4lPpkat0Oj7g4aTZqN19yOIYEeXZ+fKFikDwYvrW9UuFH/dzrGLmJzmXD p1/h1wFvXiNXJvv3LuzT3GEKgs309N2d5kK31OiCnIoCsj3tYmtvHwGzcdoxX0SL9h+i FtaHRtyhyfJSdPcOHR/K80dIlwLsWd5H7bElbRaooyyXgTxnO8IFRgsSeYj84lVK4h0R qgmw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.de header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=Ka0LrcOK; dkim=neutral (no key) header.i=@suse.de header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=6zrfcF8l; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=suse.de Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id z19-20020aa79493000000b005e1cabb612fsi1121986pfk.67.2023.04.20.01.35.11; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 01:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.de header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=Ka0LrcOK; dkim=neutral (no key) header.i=@suse.de header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=6zrfcF8l; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=suse.de Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234299AbjDTIYp (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 20 Apr 2023 04:24:45 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55534 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234431AbjDTIYi (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2023 04:24:38 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F9A340C6; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 01:24:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8DA1218E9; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 08:24:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1681979055; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QiP5e/+4S7KnMOT6XDJPynS4EU6xSJzZUOwhN1ceQZ4=; b=Ka0LrcOK1yn6kwCoYM3XsQIK3ZxWeM/e5JNhtgI0SFtoekmncvrSclbNcgq/12E5RNfh1B tKSbwcPVGtT2/YC5w4McbNVc7dh9FfvwOH8tot50WNK+ZaF895gnFjMRlXXnj5hsiArUo6 6uoNtinW8lqu1FVp2C/SaiZWbIwF/AM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1681979055; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QiP5e/+4S7KnMOT6XDJPynS4EU6xSJzZUOwhN1ceQZ4=; b=6zrfcF8lR9nuEfShfTTEJY9Eum3YmV16Vcd4njIN65Y9hLrVFotV6yrzuvZesxoabLhKWx vYy9P6qmJcw26SBQ== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99D2F1333C; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 08:24:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id xKWCJa/2QGSZbAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Thu, 20 Apr 2023 08:24:15 +0000 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:24:15 +0200 From: Daniel Wagner To: Chaitanya Kulkarni Cc: Sagi Grimberg , "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , Shin'ichiro Kawasaki Subject: Re: [RFC v1 0/1] nvme testsuite runtime optimization Message-ID: References: <20230419085643.25714-1-dwagner@suse.de> <9a1f1709-baaf-5661-2cbf-c34e2da9e42e@grimberg.me> <27235520-2e63-2891-fd0a-ff758f18032e@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <27235520-2e63-2891-fd0a-ff758f18032e@nvidia.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 09:11:33PM +0000, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote: > >> Those jobs are meant to be run for at least 1G to establish > >> confidence on the data set and the system under test since SSDs > >> are in TBs nowadays and we don't even get anywhere close to that, > >> with your suggestion we are going even lower ... > > > > Where does the 1G boundary coming from? > > > > I wrote these testcases 3 times, initially they were the part of > nvme-cli tests7-8 years ago, then nvmftests 7-6 years ago, then they > moved to blktests. > > In that time some of the testcases would not fail on with small size > such as less than 512MB especially with verification but they were > in the errors with 1G Hence I kept to be 1G. > > Now I don't remember why I didn't use bigger size than 1G > should have documented that somewhere ... Can you remember why you chosed to set the image size to 1G and the io size for fio to 950m in nvme/012 and nvme/013? I am testing various image sizes and found that small images e.g in the range of [4..64]m are passing fine but larger ones like [512-...]M do not (no space left). Note I've added a calc function which does image size - 1M to leave some room left.