linux-kernel - Re: zram: per-cpu compression streams

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:	Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:08:21 +0900
From:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: zram: per-cpu compression streams

Hello Minchan,

On (04/19/16 17:00), Minchan Kim wrote:
> Great!
> 
> So, based on your experiment, the reason I couldn't see such huge win
> in my mahcine is cache size difference(i.e., yours is twice than mine,
> IIRC.) and my perf stat didn't show such big difference.
> If I have a time, I will test it in bigger machine.

quite possible it's due to the cache size.

[..]
> > NOTE:
> > -- fio seems does not attempt to write to device more than disk size, so
> >    the test don't include 're-compresion path'.
> 
> I'm convinced now with your data. Super thanks!
> However, as you know, we need data how bad it is in heavy memory pressure.
> Maybe, you can test it with fio and backgound memory hogger,

yeah, sure, will work on it.

> Thanks for the test, Sergey!

thanks!

	-ss