From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC833C10F27 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:15:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C9E720873; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:15:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sourceforge.net header.i=@sourceforge.net header.b="E6zQs3YJ"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="ifcpGGeL"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="HGGaSYt+" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9C9E720873 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jBhXZ-0005cK-4g; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:15:33 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jBhXY-0005cC-6Y for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:15:32 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=zpaZhoMUunj88BHY3NfG0x16W3xhAElcZ9TFvoVj6Ns=; b=E6zQs3YJwgj5SkIffCVnE5UUuH 7lrzQ270oQa/Jfjy5XgEmBZbKD+IhlOnIIjkf11DMKbpdSCHp9cz+zHVSITKJE1ol4d3LCjAfXdHU BSlZdFdHL5XDUOux8oPdVSgf08cgOVot+/wTMd1yzw8B6Kur//U8ZlIoBxxbkAXx+EjM=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To :From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=zpaZhoMUunj88BHY3NfG0x16W3xhAElcZ9TFvoVj6Ns=; b=ifcpGGeLRIxx8jc8ZXhH+I9kEb aXtFFGS70Kx21f8evAXEXRODZk9XHRMY+lUFSJ5g9K37Yr1ImW0sULB0sUATDDqnLyg0e3MdLlM2h 4MvE91DCxDgnYALKeTxurNNHRrmRAhCWz/M0GM/HwWMIUMb4gN1ISZUeW3fodQ9nrOWk=; Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by sfi-mx-4.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.2) id 1jBhXT-007lwf-KT for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:15:32 +0000 Received: from sol.localdomain (c-107-3-166-239.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [107.3.166.239]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0C6A20873; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:15:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1583856917; bh=5B7f7iMicXNmubmqlX5vKEndbJydDCOLljZZexLnsC0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=HGGaSYt+LLXeCifV5rE2zEG9j8k3JLp9ZtvnClVAmGdIMNY+uF+1Ifdv7nRqqH58s 9gv6S4+LS7+4lSysbdYlMsAIS1YZpcZQSzK4wGkvs1/uq8ne7MlxnIceSlPfNiMWRW q4hEF4zU4b5Nm0A7+lRgncmeIuVCCSOzFD8hy7Xs= Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 09:15:15 -0700 From: Eric Biggers To: Chao Yu Message-ID: <20200310161515.GA1067@sol.localdomain> References: <20200310125009.12966-1-yuchao0@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200310125009.12966-1-yuchao0@huawei.com> X-Headers-End: 1jBhXT-007lwf-KT Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/5] f2fs: change default compression algorithm X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: jaegeuk@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 08:50:05PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > Use LZ4 as default compression algorithm, as compared to LZO, it shows > almost the same compression ratio and much better decompression speed. > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu > --- > fs/f2fs/super.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c > index db3a63f7c769..ebffe7aa08ee 100644 > --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c > @@ -1577,7 +1577,7 @@ static void default_options(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi) > F2FS_OPTION(sbi).test_dummy_encryption = false; > F2FS_OPTION(sbi).s_resuid = make_kuid(&init_user_ns, F2FS_DEF_RESUID); > F2FS_OPTION(sbi).s_resgid = make_kgid(&init_user_ns, F2FS_DEF_RESGID); > - F2FS_OPTION(sbi).compress_algorithm = COMPRESS_LZO; > + F2FS_OPTION(sbi).compress_algorithm = COMPRESS_LZ4; > F2FS_OPTION(sbi).compress_log_size = MIN_COMPRESS_LOG_SIZE; > F2FS_OPTION(sbi).compress_ext_cnt = 0; > F2FS_OPTION(sbi).bggc_mode = BGGC_MODE_ON; This makes sense, but it's unclear to me why comparing the different compression algorithms is happening just now, after support for both LZO and LZ4 was already merged into mainline and now has to be supported forever. During review months ago, multiple people suggested that LZ4 is better than LZO, so there's not much reason to support LZO at all. - Eric _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel