[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181129044606.GI6379@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:46:06 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Dave Rodgman <dave.rodgman@....com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
nd <nd@....com>,
"herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Matt Sealey <Matt.Sealey@....com>,
"nitingupta910@...il.com" <nitingupta910@...il.com>,
"rpurdie@...nedhand.com" <rpurdie@...nedhand.com>,
"markus@...rhumer.com" <markus@...rhumer.com>,
"minchan@...nel.org" <minchan@...nel.org>,
"sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com"
<sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
"sonnyrao@...gle.com" <sonnyrao@...gle.com>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] lib/lzo: performance improvements
On (11/27/18 16:19), Dave Rodgman wrote:
> > Right. The number is data dependent. Not all swapped out pages can be
> > compressed; compressed pages that end up being >= zs_huge_class_size() are
> > considered incompressible and stored as it.
> >
> > I'd say that on my setups around 50-60% of pages are incompressible.
>
> So, just to give a bit more detail: the test setup was a Samsung
> Chromebook Pro, cycling through 80 tabs in Chrome. With lzo-rle, only
> 5% of pages increased in size, and 90% of pages compress to 75% of
> original size (or better). Mean compression ratio was 41%. Importantly
> for lzo-rle, there are a lot of low-entropy pages where it can do well:
> in total about 20% of the data is zeros forming part of a run of 4 or
> more bytes.
>
> As a quick summary of the impact of these patches on bigger chunks of
> data, I've compared the performance of four different variants of lzo
> on two large (~40 MB) files. The numbers show round-trip throughput
> in MB/s:
>
> Variant | Low-entropy | High-entropy
> Current lzo | 242 | 157
> Arm opts | 290 | 159
> RLE | 876 | 151
> Arm opts + RLE | 1150 | 181
>
> So both the Arm optimisations (8,16-byte copy & CTZ patches), and the
> RLE implementation make a significant contribution to the overall
> performance uplift.
Cool!
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists