[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160427090139.GA1317@swordfish>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 18:01:40 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
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 (04/27/16 17:54), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> #jobs4
> READ: 19948MB/s 20013MB/s
> READ: 17732MB/s 17479MB/s
> WRITE: 630690KB/s 495078KB/s
> WRITE: 1843.2MB/s 2226.9MB/s
> READ: 1603.4MB/s 1846.8MB/s
> WRITE: 1599.4MB/s 1842.2MB/s
> READ: 1547.7MB/s 1740.7MB/s
> WRITE: 1549.2MB/s 1742.4MB/s
> jobs4
> stalled-cycles-frontend 265,519,049,536 ( 64.46%) 221,049,841,649 ( 61.81%)
> stalled-cycles-backend 146,538,881,296 ( 35.57%) 113,774,053,039 ( 31.82%)
> instructions 298,241,854,695 ( 0.72) 278,000,866,874 ( 0.78)
> branches 59,531,800,053 ( 400.919) 55,096,944,109 ( 427.816)
> branch-misses 285,108,083 ( 0.48%) 260,972,185 ( 0.47%)
> seconds elapsed 47.816933840 52.966896478
per-cpu in general looks better in this test (jobs4): less stalls, less
branches, less misses, better fio speeds (except for WRITE: 630690KB/s 495078KB/s).
the system was under pressure, so quite possible that it took more time to kill the
process, thus execution time is in favor of 8 streams test.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists