From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1955878AbdDZGEe (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:04:34 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f66.google.com ([74.125.83.66]:35610 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1949931AbdDZGEd (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:04:33 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:04:26 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] zram: implement deduplication in zram
Message-ID: <20170426060425.GC29773@js1304-desktop>
References: <1493167946-10936-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
 <1493167946-10936-3-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
 <20170426040243.GC673@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170426040243.GC673@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 01:02:43PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (04/26/17 09:52), js1304@gmail.com wrote:
> [..]
> > <no-dedup>
> > Elapsed time: out/host: 88 s
> > mm_stat: 8834420736 3658184579 3834208256 0 3834208256 32889 0 0 0
> > 
> > <dedup>
> > Elapsed time: out/host: 100 s
> > mm_stat: 8832929792 3657329322 2832015360 0 2832015360 32609 0 952568877 80880336
> > 
> > It shows performance degradation roughly 13% and save 24% memory. Maybe,
> > it is due to overhead of calculating checksum and comparison.
> 
> I like the patch set, and it makes sense. the benefit is, obviously,
> case-by-case. on my system I've managed to save just 60MB on a 2.7G
> data set, which is far less than I was hoping to save :)
> 
> 
> I usually do DIRECT IO fio performance test. JFYI, the results
> were as follows:

Could you share your fio test setting? I will try to re-generate the
result and analyze it.

I guess that contention happens due to same data page. Could you check
it?

Thanks.