[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240924192351.74728-1-kernel@pankajraghav.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 21:23:49 +0200
From: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
To: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: willy@...radead.org,
mcgrof@...nel.org,
gost.dev@...sung.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
kernel@...kajraghav.com,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] add block size > page size support to ramfs
From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Add block size > page size to ramfs as we support minimum folio order
allocation in the page cache. The changes are very minimal, and this is
also a nice way to stress test just the page cache changes for minimum
folio order.
I tested the changes from blocksize 4k to 2M with ltp's fsx on an x86
machine.
I ran a basic perf test with dd as follows:
$ mount ramfs -t ramfs -o blocksize=$bs /media/test/
$ dd if=/mnt/rand of="/media/test/rand" bs=2M count=2048
+------+----------+
| bs | BW(GB/s) |
+------+----------+
| 4k | 1.7 |
| 8k | 2.4 |
| 16k | 3.2 |
| 32k | 4.0 |
| 64k | 4.5 |
| 128k | 4.8 |
| 256k | 5.3 |
| 512k | 5.5 |
| 1M | 5.6 |
| 2M | 5.6 |
+------+----------+
We get better performance for larger bs as we allocate larger folios
instead of multiple smaller folios when there is no memory fragmentation
and pressure.
Pankaj Raghav (2):
ramfs: add blocksize mount option
ramfs: enable block size > page size
fs/ramfs/inode.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
base-commit: 4d0326b60bb753627437fff0f76bf1525bcda422
--
2.44.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists