From: Seth Jennings <sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>,
Robert Jennings <rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] zsmalloc improvements
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:00:30 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FFD86FE.1090307@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FFD2524.2050300@kernel.org>
On 07/11/2012 02:03 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 06:15 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>> zsmapbench measures the copy-based mapping at ~560 cycles for a
>> map/unmap operation on spanned object for both KVM guest and bare-metal,
>> while the page table mapping was ~1500 cycles on a VM and ~760 cycles
>> bare-metal. The cycles for the copy method will vary with
>> allocation size, however, it is still faster even for the largest
>> allocation that zsmalloc supports.
>>
>> The result is convenient though, as mempcy is very portable :)
>
> Today, I tested zsmapbench in my embedded board(ARM).
> tlb-flush is 30% faster than copy-based so it's always not win.
> I think it depends on CPU speed/cache size.
>
> zram is already very popular on embedded systems so I want to use
> it continuously without 30% big demage so I want to keep our old approach
> which supporting local tlb flush.
>
> Of course, in case of KVM guest, copy-based would be always bin win.
> So shouldn't we support both approach? It could make code very ugly
> but I think it has enough value.
>
> Any thought?
Thanks for testing on ARM.
I can add the pgtable assisted method back in, no problem.
The question is by which criteria are we going to choose
which method to use? By arch (i.e. ARM -> pgtable assist,
x86 -> copy, other archs -> ?)?
Also, what changes did you make to zsmapbench to measure
elapsed time/cycles on ARM? Afaik, rdtscll() is not
supported on ARM.
Thanks,
Seth
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Seth Jennings <sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>,
Robert Jennings <rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] zsmalloc improvements
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:00:30 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FFD86FE.1090307@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FFD2524.2050300@kernel.org>
On 07/11/2012 02:03 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 06:15 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>> zsmapbench measures the copy-based mapping at ~560 cycles for a
>> map/unmap operation on spanned object for both KVM guest and bare-metal,
>> while the page table mapping was ~1500 cycles on a VM and ~760 cycles
>> bare-metal. The cycles for the copy method will vary with
>> allocation size, however, it is still faster even for the largest
>> allocation that zsmalloc supports.
>>
>> The result is convenient though, as mempcy is very portable :)
>
> Today, I tested zsmapbench in my embedded board(ARM).
> tlb-flush is 30% faster than copy-based so it's always not win.
> I think it depends on CPU speed/cache size.
>
> zram is already very popular on embedded systems so I want to use
> it continuously without 30% big demage so I want to keep our old approach
> which supporting local tlb flush.
>
> Of course, in case of KVM guest, copy-based would be always bin win.
> So shouldn't we support both approach? It could make code very ugly
> but I think it has enough value.
>
> Any thought?
Thanks for testing on ARM.
I can add the pgtable assisted method back in, no problem.
The question is by which criteria are we going to choose
which method to use? By arch (i.e. ARM -> pgtable assist,
x86 -> copy, other archs -> ?)?
Also, what changes did you make to zsmapbench to measure
elapsed time/cycles on ARM? Afaik, rdtscll() is not
supported on ARM.
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-11 14:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-02 21:15 Seth Jennings
2012-07-02 21:15 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-02 21:15 ` [PATCH 1/4] zsmalloc: remove x86 dependency Seth Jennings
2012-07-02 21:15 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-10 2:21 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-10 2:21 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-10 15:29 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-10 15:29 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-11 7:27 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-11 7:27 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-11 18:26 ` Nitin Gupta
2012-07-11 18:26 ` Nitin Gupta
2012-07-11 20:32 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-11 20:32 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-11 22:42 ` Nitin Gupta
2012-07-11 22:42 ` Nitin Gupta
2012-07-12 0:23 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-12 0:23 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-02 21:15 ` [PATCH 2/4] zsmalloc: add single-page object fastpath in unmap Seth Jennings
2012-07-02 21:15 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-10 2:25 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-10 2:25 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-02 21:15 ` [PATCH 3/4] zsmalloc: add details to zs_map_object boiler plate Seth Jennings
2012-07-02 21:15 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-10 2:35 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-10 2:35 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-10 15:17 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-10 15:17 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-11 7:42 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-11 7:42 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-11 14:15 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-11 14:15 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-12 1:15 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-12 1:15 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-12 19:54 ` Dan Magenheimer
2012-07-12 19:54 ` Dan Magenheimer
2012-07-12 22:46 ` Dan Magenheimer
2012-07-12 22:46 ` Dan Magenheimer
2012-07-02 21:15 ` [PATCH 4/4] zsmalloc: add mapping modes Seth Jennings
2012-07-02 21:15 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-04 5:33 ` [PATCH 0/4] zsmalloc improvements Minchan Kim
2012-07-04 5:33 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-04 20:43 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-07-04 20:43 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-07-06 15:07 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-06 15:07 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-09 13:58 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-09 13:58 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-11 19:42 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-07-11 19:42 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-07-11 20:48 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-11 20:48 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-12 10:40 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-07-12 10:40 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-07-11 7:03 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-11 7:03 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-11 14:00 ` Seth Jennings [this message]
2012-07-11 14:00 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-12 1:01 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-12 1:01 ` Minchan Kim
2012-07-11 19:16 ` Seth Jennings
2012-07-11 19:16 ` Seth Jennings
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4FFD86FE.1090307@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dan.magenheimer@oracle.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=ngupta@vflare.org \
--cc=rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--subject='Re: [PATCH 0/4] zsmalloc improvements' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.