xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND] xfstests generic/320: heavy rm workload test

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND] xfstests generic/320: heavy rm workload test
From: Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:26:15 +0800
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131112050249.GZ6188@dastard>
References: <1384229890-30733-1-git-send-email-eguan@xxxxxxxxxx> <20131112050249.GZ6188@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 04:02:50PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:18:10PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > This test is based on generic/273, a regression test for commit
> > 
> > 9a3a5da xfs: check for stale inode before acquiring iflock on push
> > 
> > On unpatched kernel, rm processes would hang.
> ....
> > +threads=50
> > +count=2
> > +fs_size=$((2 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024))
> > +ORIGIN=$SCRATCH_MNT/origin
> > +
> > +threads_set()
> > +{
> > +   cpu_num=`grep -c processor /proc/cpuinfo`
> 
> Please us src/feature for this. See commit:
> 
> 2dcf4a5 xfstests: src/feature.c: print a number of online CPUs
> 
> > +   threads=$(($cpu_num * 50))
> > +   if [ $threads -gt 200 ]
> > +   then
> > +           threads=200
> > +   fi
> > +}
> 
> Didn't we go through this before? Or was that the review that lead
> to the above commit? i.e. to use $LOAD_FACTOR to scale the workload,
> not the number of CPUs....

Sorry, I may miss that part of review, will revise the patch.

> 
> > +
> > +file_create()
> > +{
> > +   i=0
> > +   mkdir $ORIGIN
> > +
> > +   disksize=$(($fs_size / 3))
> > +   num=$(($disksize / $count / $threads / 4096))
> > +   while [ $i -lt $num ]; do
> > +           $XFS_IO_PROG -f -c "pwrite 0 $((4096*count))" $ORIGIN/file_$i 
> > >>$seqres.full 2>&1
> 
> Line too long.

Ok, will update.

Thanks for the review!

Eryu
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>