| Message ID | 20230421060505.10132-5-dwagner@suse.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | nvme testsuite runtime optimization | expand |
On 4/21/23 08:05, Daniel Wagner wrote: > The fio jobs are supposed to run long in background during the test. > Instead relying on a job size use explicit runtime for this. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de> > --- > tests/nvme/032 | 2 +- > tests/nvme/040 | 3 ++- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/nvme/032 b/tests/nvme/032 > index 017d4a339971..81e074cc11bc 100755 > --- a/tests/nvme/032 > +++ b/tests/nvme/032 > @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ test_device() { > > # start fio job > _run_fio_rand_io --filename="$TEST_DEV" --size=1g \ > - --group_reporting &> /dev/null & > + --group_reporting --time_based --runtime=1m &> /dev/null & > > sleep 5 > > diff --git a/tests/nvme/040 b/tests/nvme/040 > index 04bd726cd309..8d29f905adb5 100755 > --- a/tests/nvme/040 > +++ b/tests/nvme/040 > @@ -38,7 +38,8 @@ test() { > # start fio job > echo "starting background fio" > _run_fio_rand_io --filename="/dev/${nvmedev}n1" --size=1g \ > - --group_reporting --ramp_time=5 &> /dev/null & > + --group_reporting --ramp_time=5 \ > + --time_based --runtime=1m &> /dev/null & > sleep 5 > > # do reset/remove operation Wouldn't it be better to let _run_fio_rand_io pick the correct size? Cheers, Hannes
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 08:29:22AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > --- a/tests/nvme/040 > > +++ b/tests/nvme/040 > > @@ -38,7 +38,8 @@ test() { > > # start fio job > > echo "starting background fio" > > _run_fio_rand_io --filename="/dev/${nvmedev}n1" --size=1g \ > > - --group_reporting --ramp_time=5 &> /dev/null & > > + --group_reporting --ramp_time=5 \ > > + --time_based --runtime=1m &> /dev/null & > > sleep 5 > > # do reset/remove operation > > Wouldn't it be better to let _run_fio_rand_io pick the correct size? Yes, makes sense.
On Apr 21, 2023 / 08:57, Daniel Wagner wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 08:29:22AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > --- a/tests/nvme/040 > > > +++ b/tests/nvme/040 > > > @@ -38,7 +38,8 @@ test() { > > > # start fio job > > > echo "starting background fio" > > > _run_fio_rand_io --filename="/dev/${nvmedev}n1" --size=1g \ > > > - --group_reporting --ramp_time=5 &> /dev/null & > > > + --group_reporting --ramp_time=5 \ > > > + --time_based --runtime=1m &> /dev/null & > > > sleep 5 > > > # do reset/remove operation > > > > Wouldn't it be better to let _run_fio_rand_io pick the correct size? > > Yes, makes sense. If you do I/O size change for the test cases nvme/032 and nvme/040, could you confirm the runtime reduction of the test cases? IIUC, the fio process stops due to process kill or an I/O error, then I/O size reduction will not change runtime of the test cases, I guess. IMO, --time_based --runtime=1m is good to ensure that fio runs long enough, even when nvme device size is configured with small size.
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 04:29:57AM +0000, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote: > On Apr 21, 2023 / 08:57, Daniel Wagner wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 08:29:22AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > > --- a/tests/nvme/040 > > > > +++ b/tests/nvme/040 > > > > @@ -38,7 +38,8 @@ test() { > > > > # start fio job > > > > echo "starting background fio" > > > > _run_fio_rand_io --filename="/dev/${nvmedev}n1" --size=1g \ > > > > - --group_reporting --ramp_time=5 &> /dev/null & > > > > + --group_reporting --ramp_time=5 \ > > > > + --time_based --runtime=1m &> /dev/null & > > > > sleep 5 > > > > # do reset/remove operation > > > > > > Wouldn't it be better to let _run_fio_rand_io pick the correct size? > > > > Yes, makes sense. > > If you do I/O size change for the test cases nvme/032 and nvme/040, could you > confirm the runtime reduction of the test cases? IIUC, the fio process stops > due to process kill or an I/O error, then I/O size reduction will not change > runtime of the test cases, I guess. The fio process doesn't survive the reset and the deletion of the controller. > IMO, --time_based --runtime=1m is good to ensure that fio runs long enough, > even when nvme device size is configured with small size. I've updated the time to 'infinity' and added a 'kill $pid' after reset and delete. Though the process should be gone till then but making the test a bit more robust should hurt.
diff --git a/tests/nvme/032 b/tests/nvme/032 index 017d4a339971..81e074cc11bc 100755 --- a/tests/nvme/032 +++ b/tests/nvme/032 @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ test_device() { # start fio job _run_fio_rand_io --filename="$TEST_DEV" --size=1g \ - --group_reporting &> /dev/null & + --group_reporting --time_based --runtime=1m &> /dev/null & sleep 5 diff --git a/tests/nvme/040 b/tests/nvme/040 index 04bd726cd309..8d29f905adb5 100755 --- a/tests/nvme/040 +++ b/tests/nvme/040 @@ -38,7 +38,8 @@ test() { # start fio job echo "starting background fio" _run_fio_rand_io --filename="/dev/${nvmedev}n1" --size=1g \ - --group_reporting --ramp_time=5 &> /dev/null & + --group_reporting --ramp_time=5 \ + --time_based --runtime=1m &> /dev/null & sleep 5 # do reset/remove operation
The fio jobs are supposed to run long in background during the test. Instead relying on a job size use explicit runtime for this. Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de> --- tests/nvme/032 | 2 +- tests/nvme/040 | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)