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;
Date:   Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:31:30 +0200
From:   Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
To:     Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
        "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        Shin'ichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro@fastmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 0/1] nvme testsuite runtime optimization
Message-ID: <xhnr5dhpjqh5ynhqkcwn5ohfjvzlaw7chmuqicp7oqdd76ixxz@uzsozlvenedd>
References: <20230419085643.25714-1-dwagner@suse.de>
 <f0d2ddd5-37d6-8fba-a5e3-965fb9f41474@nvidia.com>
 <9a1f1709-baaf-5661-2cbf-c34e2da9e42e@grimberg.me>
 <27235520-2e63-2891-fd0a-ff758f18032e@nvidia.com>
 <qflkb4gu5lz5wx2oka5ceclj7ez5ic5oyofd3tzyjapjyrorlk@e7kkpa6bxwun>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <qflkb4gu5lz5wx2oka5ceclj7ez5ic5oyofd3tzyjapjyrorlk@e7kkpa6bxwun>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 10:24:15AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> 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?

forget it, found a commit message which explains it

e5bd71872b3b ("nvme/012,013,035: change fio I/O size and move size definition place")
  [...]
  Change fio I/O size of nvme/012,013,035 from 950m to 900m, since recent change
  increased the xfs log size and it caused fio failure with I/O size 950m.