[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200906183820.GA13290@amd>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 20:38:20 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] /dev/zero: also implement ->read
On Sun 2020-09-06 20:35:38, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 06/09/2020 à 20:21, Pavel Machek a écrit :
> >Hi!
> >
> >>>>Christophe reported a major speedup due to avoiding the iov_iter
> >>>>overhead, so just add this trivial function. Note that /dev/zero
> >>>>already implements both an iter and non-iter writes so this just
> >>>>makes it more symmetric.
> >>>>
> >>>>Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> >>>
> >>>Tested-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
> >>
> >>Any idea what has happened to make the 'iter' version so bad?
> >
> >Exactly. Also it would be nice to note how the speedup was measured
> >and what the speedup is.
> >
>
> Was measured on an 8xx powerpc running at 132MHz with:
>
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null count=1M
>
> With the patch, dd displays a throughput of 113.5MB/s
> Without the patch it is 99.9MB/s
Actually... that does not seem like a huge deal. read(/dev/zero) is
not that common operation.
Are you getting similar speedups on normal hardware?
Pavel
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists