Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:54:36 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V5 00/30] loop: Issue O_DIRECT aio using bio_vec | From | Sedat Dilek <> |
| |
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Dave Kleikamp > <dave.kleikamp@oracle.com> wrote: >> On 01/10/2013 09:46 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >>> Hi Dave, >>> >>> I am using here Ubuntu/precise AMD64 as a WUBI-installed system. >>> >>> Not sure if WUBI [1] is a good test-candidate. >>> >>> [ /boot/grub/grub.cfg ] >>> ... >>> set root=(loop0) >>> linux /boot/vmlinuz-3.8.0-rc2-9-iniza-generic >>> root=UUID=001AADA61AAD9964 loop=/ubuntu/disks/root.disk ro >>> ... >>> >>> Poops, I did it (not again) but for the first time to test your >>> loop-patchset on top of Linux v3.8-rc2 plus some important other stuff >>> (see patches/ dir in attached tarball). >>> >>> As I did not know how to test it in a meaningful way I just run the >>> "lite" test-script from LTP [2]. >>> Please, have a look at the ERRORs and failures. >> >> I'd really like to know if these same testcases fail without my >> patchset. I'm going to play with ltp on loop-mounted filesystems, but I >> don't intend to play with WUBI at all. >> > > I am preparing now two kernels against Linux v3.8-rc3 (as your > patchset applies cleany) with 2 important patches which I need here > (1. mei: no proper reboot and 2. (S)ATA fix). > > I will attach two tarballs for each kernel-setup and run LTP "lite" > again (tarballs will include the results). >
As promised both tarballs attached!
*-iniza-generic: Linux v3.8-rc3 with my patches from patches/ dir *-shaggy-generic: Identical as above, but with your loop patchset (see patch in patches/ dir).
$ egrep -i 'error|fail' v3.8.0-rc3-4-iniza-generic/tests/runltplite-results_*.txt | egrep -v -i 'expected|perm' | wc -l 197
$ egrep -i 'error|fail' v3.8.0-rc3-5-shaggy-generic/tests/runltplite-results_*.txt | egrep -v -i 'expected|perm' | wc -l 196
As said I am new to LTP and might have a deeper look into the results files.
( I am really interested in a loop-benchmark, but have no real good idea. )
Hope this helps you!
- Sedat -
>> I'd be interested if my patchset introduces regressions, but not so much >> if the same testcases fail previously. >> > > Hmm, regressions is always good to test. > As a "customer" aka tester I want to see any benefit means for most > power-users: Do I get some speedups? > That's the main background of my askings. > > As said here I am running Ubuntu as a WUBI-installation. > This system is predestinated for testing loop improvements. > So again and no sorry: How can I test reliable speed improvements? > I remember linux-fs/linux-xfs folks have a tool could be named > "xfstests" (note2myself: more coffee!). > Any hints for testing appreciated! > > - Sedat - > >>> $ egrep -i 'error|fail' >>> for-dkleikamp/tests/runltplite-results_loop-experimental.txt | grep -v >>> -i expected | wc -l >>> 210 >>> >>> In good old German tradition I have collected some interesting stuff >>> in the attached tarball ;-). >>> If something is missing - blame me. >>> Don't hesitate to ask (I have your patchset for a while on my radar). >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Regards, >>> - Sedat - >>> >>> [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WubiGuide >>> [2] http://sourceforge.net/projects/ltp/ [unhandled content-type:application/octet-stream][unhandled content-type:application/octet-stream][unhandled content-type:application/octet-stream][unhandled content-type:application/octet-stream] | |