[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20231208115821.402176c9e37ab11470a8656d@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2023 11:58:21 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>
Cc: tj@...nel.org, lizefan.x@...edance.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
cerasuolodomenico@...il.com, yosryahmed@...gle.com,
sjenning@...hat.com, ddstreet@...e.org, vitaly.wool@...sulko.com,
mhocko@...nel.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeelb@...gle.com,
muchun.song@...ux.dev, hughd@...gle.com, corbet@....net,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, senozhatsky@...omium.org, rppt@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
david@...t.cz, chrisl@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] zswap: memcontrol: implement zswap writeback
disabling
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 17:14:22 -0800 Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com> wrote:
> > I don't have any concrete numbers though - any numbers I can pull out
> > are from highly artificial tasks that only serve to test the
> > correctness aspect of the implementation. zswap.writeback disablement
> > would of course be faster in these situations (up to 33%!!!!) - but
> > that's basically just saying HDD is slow. Which is not very
> > informative or surprising, so I did not include it in the changelog.
>
> For instance, on a server with HDD, I allocate memories and populate
> them with random values (so that zswap store will always fail), and
> specify memory.high low enough to trigger reclaim. The time it takes
> to allocate the memories and just read through it a couple of times
> (doing silly things like computing the values' average etc.):
>
> zswap.writeback disabled:
> real 0m30.537s
> user 0m23.687s
> sys 0m6.637s
> 0 pages swapped in
> 0 pages swapped out
>
> zswap.writeback enabled:
> real 0m45.061s
> user 0m24.310s
> sys 0m8.892s
> 712686 pages swapped in
> 461093 pages swapped out
>
> (the last two lines are from vmstat -s).
I pasted that also.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists