[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FFDD12B.1050909@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:16:59 -0500
From: Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
Robert Jennings <rcj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] zsmalloc improvements
On 07/11/2012 02:03 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Today, I tested zsmapbench in my embedded board(ARM).
> tlb-flush is 30% faster than copy-based so it's always not win.
> I think it depends on CPU speed/cache size.
After you pointed this out, I decided to test this on my
Raspberry Pi, the only ARM system I have that is open enough
for me to work with.
I pulled some of the cycle counting stuff out of
arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_v6.c. I've pushed that code to
the github repo.
git://github.com/spartacus06/zsmapbench.git
My results were in agreement with your findings. I got 2040
cycles/map for the copy method and 947 cycles/map for the
page-table method. I think memory speed is playing a big
roll in the difference.
I agree that the page-table method should be restored since
the performance difference is so significant on ARM, a
platform that benefits a lot from memory compression IMHO.
Still, the question remains how to implement the selection
logic, since not all archs that support the page-table
method will necessarily perform better with it.
Thanks,
Seth
--
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