[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1317196649.1998.27.camel@shrek.rexursive.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:57:29 +1000
From: Bojan Smojver <bojan@...ursive.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5]: Improve performance of LZO hibernation
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 10:48 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > We want to keep at least one CPU free for that I/O and for pulling
> the
> > other threads into sync when they are done (that is if we have more
> than
> > one), right?
>
> Well, dunno if it matters much. Did you see performance improvement
> with that?
Haven't tried, to be honest. Just thought it may make sense.
> Is the CPU binding really needed?
Don't really know, but I would think it would help with
compression/decompression code. We don't want these threads bouncing
between CPUs unless they have to. I would guess the caches would work
better that way and all that.
Again, just guessing.
> Anyway, if you want to keep the existing behavior, maybe something
> like
>
> nr_other_cpus = min(1, num_online_cpus()-1);
>
> nr_threads = min(nr_other_cpus, LZO_THREADS);
>
> would do the trick?
Yeah, makes sense. The first one should be max() though.
--
Bojan
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists