[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160427075549.GB29816@bbox>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:55:49 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: zram: per-cpu compression streams
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 04:43:35PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On (04/27/16 16:29), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > > the test:
> > >
> > > -- 4 GB x86_64 box
> > > -- zram 3GB, lzo
> > > -- mem-hogger pre-faults 3GB of pages before the fio test
> > > -- fio test has been modified to have 11% compression ratio (to increase the
> > > chances of re-compressions)
> >
> > Could you test concurrent mem hogger with fio rather than pre-fault before fio test
> > in next submit?
>
> this test will not prove anything, unfortunately. I performed it;
> and it's impossible to guarantee even remotely stable results.
> mem-hogger process can spend on pre-fault from 41 to 81 seconds;
> so I'm quite sceptical about the actual value of this test.
>
> > > considering buffer_compress_percentage=11, the box was under somewhat
> > > heavy pressure.
> > >
> > > now, the results
> >
> > Yeb, Even, recompression case is fater than old but want to see more heavy memory
> > pressure case and the ratio I mentioned above.
>
> I did quite heavy testing over the last 7 days, with numerous OOM kills
> and OOM panics.
Okay, I think it's worth to merge enough and see the result.
Please send formal patch which has recompression stat. ;-)
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists