linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] compcache: documentation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 29 Aug 2009 01:23:03 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-mm-cc@...top.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] compcache: documentation

* Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org> [2009-08-25 23:41:06]:

> On 08/25/2009 10:33 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
>
>>> +It consists of three modules:
>>> + - xvmalloc.ko: memory allocator
>>
>> I've seen your case for a custom allocator, but why can't we
>>
>> 1) Refactor slob and use it
>
> SLOB is fundamentally a different allocator. It looked at it in detail
> but could not image how can I make it suitable for the project. SLOB
> really does not fit it.
>
>> 2) Do we care about the optimizations in SLUB w.r.t. scalability in
>> your module? If so.. will xvmalloc meet those requirements?
>>
>
> Scalability is desired which xvmalloc lacks in its current state. My
> plan is to have a wrapper around xvmalloc that creates per-cpu pools
> and leave xvmalloc core simple. Along with this, detailed profiling
> needs to be done to see where the bottlenecks are in the core itself.
>

I've not yet tested the patches, but adding another allocator does
worry me a bit. Do you intend to allow other users to consume the
allocator routines?

>
>>
>> What level of compression have you observed? Any speed trade-offs?
>>
>
> All the performance numbers can be found at:
> http://code.google.com/p/compcache/wiki/Performance
>
> I also summarized these in patch [0/4]:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/24/8
>
> The compression ratio is highly workload dependent. On "generic" desktop
> workload, stats show:
>  - ~80% of pages compressing to PAGE_SIZE/2 or less.
>  - ~1% incompressible pages.
>
>
> For the speed part, please refer to performance numbers at link above.
> It show cases where it help or hurts the performance.
>

Thanks, I'll take a look at the links

-- 
	Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/