[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170209002436.GA103792@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:24:36 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Sven Schmidt <4sschmid@...ormatik.uni-hamburg.de>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, bongkyu.kim@....com,
rsalvaterra@...il.com, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, davem@...emloft.net,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, anton@...msg.org, ccross@...roid.com,
keescook@...omium.org, tony.luck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] Update LZ4 compressor module
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 08:31:21AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>
> Today, I did zram-lz4 performance test with fio in current mmotm and
> found it makes regression about 20%.
>
This may or may not be the cause of the specific regression you're observing,
but I just noticed that the proposed patch drops a lot of FORCEINLINE
annotations from upstream LZ4. The FORCEINLINE's are there for a reason,
especially for the main decompression and compression functions which are
basically "templates" that take in different sets of constant parameters, and
should be left in. We should #define FORCEINLINE to __always_inline somewhere,
or just do a s/FORCEINLINE/__always_inline/g.
Note that the upstream LZ4 code is very carefully optimized, so we should not,
in general, be changing things like when functions are force-inlined, what the
hash table size is, etc.
[Also, for some reason linux-crypto is apparently still not receiving patch 1/5
in the series. It's missing from the linux-crypto archive at
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-crypto/, so it's not just me.]
Thanks!
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists