linux-kernel - Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: change virtual mapping way for compression pages

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3059d7b0-cf50-4315-e5a9-8d9c00965a7c@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:54:35 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To:     Daeho Jeong <daeho43@...il.com>
CC:     Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...hat.com>,
        Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@...gle.com>, <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: change virtual mapping way for
 compression pages

On 2020/8/11 15:15, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:37:53PM +0900, Daeho Jeong wrote:
>> From: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@...gle.com>
>>
>> By profiling f2fs compression works, I've found vmap() callings are
>> bottlenecks of f2fs decompression path. Changing these with
>> vm_map_ram(), we can enhance f2fs decompression speed pretty much.
>>
>> [Verification]
>> dd if=/dev/zero of=dummy bs=1m count=1000
>> echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
>> dd if=dummy of=/dev/zero bs=512k
>>
>> - w/o compression -
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 1.999384 s, 500 M/s
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 2.035988 s, 491 M/s
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 2.039457 s, 490 M/s
>>
>> - before patch -
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 9.146217 s, 109 M/s
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 9.997542 s, 100 M/s
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 10.109727 s, 99 M/s
>>
>> - after patch -
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 2.253441 s, 444 M/s
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 2.739764 s, 365 M/s
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 2.185649 s, 458 M/s
> 
> Indeed, vmap() approach has some impact on the whole
> workflow. But I don't think the gap is such significant,
> maybe it relates to unlocked cpufreq (and big little
> core difference if it's on some arm64 board).

Agreed,

I guess there should be other reason causing the large performance
gap, scheduling, frequency, or something else.

> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> .
>