[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170311145640.GB1860@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 06:56:40 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, ngupta@...are.org, zhouxianrong@...wei.com,
zhouxiyu@...wei.com, weidu.du@...wei.com, zhangshiming5@...wei.com,
Mi.Sophia.Wang@...wei.com, won.ho.park@...wei.com
Subject: memfill v2 now with ARM and x86 implementations
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:16:44AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> +static inline void zram_fill_page(char *ptr, unsigned long len,
> + unsigned long value)
> +{
> + int i;
> + unsigned long *page = (unsigned long *)ptr;
> +
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!IS_ALIGNED(len, sizeof(unsigned long)));
> +
> + if (likely(value == 0)) {
> + memset(ptr, 0, len);
> + } else {
> + for (i = 0; i < len / sizeof(*page); i++)
> + page[i] = value;
> + }
> +}
I've hacked up memset32/memset64 for both ARM and x86 here:
http://git.infradead.org/users/willy/linux-dax.git/shortlog/refs/heads/memfill
Can you do some performance testing and see if it makes a difference?
At this point, I'd probably ask for the first 5 patches in that git
branch to be included, and leave out memfill and the shoddy testsuite.
I haven't actually tested either asm implementation ... only the
C fallback.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists