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: <CACOAw_yic7GF3E1zEvZ=Gea3XW4fMYdg-cNuu4wfg+uTKMcJqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:28:33 +0900
From:   Daeho Jeong <daeho43@...il.com>
To:     Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.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

Actually, as you can see, I use the whole zero data blocks in the test file.
It can maximize the effect of changing virtual mapping.
When I use normal files which can be compressed about 70% from the
original file,
The vm_map_ram() version is about 2x faster than vmap() version.

2020년 8월 11일 (화) 오후 4:55, Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>님이 작성:
>
> 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
> > .
> >