From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754151Ab2GIN6f (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2012 09:58:35 -0400 Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:56568 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753527Ab2GIN6e (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2012 09:58:34 -0400 Message-ID: <4FFAE37F.70403@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:58:23 -0500 From: Seth Jennings User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Dan Magenheimer , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Nitin Gupta , Minchan Kim , Robert Jennings , linux-mm@kvack.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] zsmalloc improvements References: <1341263752-10210-1-git-send-email-sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120704204325.GB2924@localhost.localdomain> <4FF6FF1F.5090701@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4FF6FF1F.5090701@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12070913-7182-0000-0000-000001EFE7B0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/06/2012 10:07 AM, Seth Jennings wrote: > On 07/04/2012 03:43 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 04:15:48PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote: >>> This exposed an interesting and unexpected result: in all >>> cases that I tried, copying the objects that span pages instead >>> of using the page table to map them, was _always_ faster. I could >>> not find a case in which the page table mapping method was faster. >> >> Which architecture was this under? It sounds x86-ish? Is this on >> Westmere and more modern machines? What about Core2 architecture? >> >> Oh how did it work on AMD Phenom boxes? > > I don't have a Phenom box but I have an Athlon X2 I can try out. > I'll get this information next Monday. Actually, I'm running some production stuff on that box, so I rather not put testing stuff on it. Is there any particular reason that you wanted this information? Do you have a reason to believe that mapping will be faster than copy for AMD procs? (To everyone) I'd like to get this acked before the 3.6 merge window if there are no concerns/objections. Thanks, Seth From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx161.postini.com [74.125.245.161]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 74DD86B006C for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 09:59:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from /spool/local by e34.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 07:59:27 -0600 Received: from d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.228]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A41033E40066 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:58:44 +0000 (WET) Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q69DwSIW226180 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 07:58:31 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q69DwQdK029552 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 07:58:27 -0600 Message-ID: <4FFAE37F.70403@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:58:23 -0500 From: Seth Jennings MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] zsmalloc improvements References: <1341263752-10210-1-git-send-email-sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120704204325.GB2924@localhost.localdomain> <4FF6FF1F.5090701@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4FF6FF1F.5090701@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Dan Magenheimer , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Nitin Gupta , Minchan Kim , Robert Jennings , linux-mm@kvack.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/06/2012 10:07 AM, Seth Jennings wrote: > On 07/04/2012 03:43 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 04:15:48PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote: >>> This exposed an interesting and unexpected result: in all >>> cases that I tried, copying the objects that span pages instead >>> of using the page table to map them, was _always_ faster. I could >>> not find a case in which the page table mapping method was faster. >> >> Which architecture was this under? It sounds x86-ish? Is this on >> Westmere and more modern machines? What about Core2 architecture? >> >> Oh how did it work on AMD Phenom boxes? > > I don't have a Phenom box but I have an Athlon X2 I can try out. > I'll get this information next Monday. Actually, I'm running some production stuff on that box, so I rather not put testing stuff on it. Is there any particular reason that you wanted this information? Do you have a reason to believe that mapping will be faster than copy for AMD procs? (To everyone) I'd like to get this acked before the 3.6 merge window if there are no concerns/objections. Thanks, Seth -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org