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 Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8B66C47DDF for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 02:47:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=m0MbYg8P; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TLhtt4NDcz3cRD for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:47:34 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=m0MbYg8P; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com (client-ip=115.124.30.132; helo=out30-132.freemail.mail.aliyun.com; envelope-from=hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from out30-132.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-132.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TLhtl5m84z3bWQ for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:47:26 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1706237241; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=Y0OWrvhROo9GqyNxI8jKpRz7J5zn7OSQShHNuy2YOw4=; b=m0MbYg8PkAkOl5Be3eYuvcaHp7v8WGG6hwt9+SYTwbhEEfeDKsBejy/84L3cHYZMyN501WRyhR9XTmv8pS//x9cd4QncIKEFC4NcRt8xbY+3wMZ+l2YsPiyWU/ESXc1cTd3NA6xkXw3x/T2G7DVVMG8SwarL80Ng88sdl3UUzN8= X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R401e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=ay29a033018045168;MF=hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=6;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0W.M6fM7_1706237238; Received: from 30.97.48.207(mailfrom:hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0W.M6fM7_1706237238) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 10:47:20 +0800 Message-ID: <61c6c462-11cf-4e66-ab24-712e55f9cf19@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 10:47:18 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] erofs: relaxed temporary buffers allocation on readahead To: Chunhai Guo , "xiang@kernel.org" References: <20240120145551.1941483-1-guochunhai@vivo.com> <0aae43b2-c37b-41c8-be3f-3ebf0bb3d052@vivo.com> <66d22178-88fa-409f-a33b-bcaee905b0d0@vivo.com> From: Gao Xiang In-Reply-To: <66d22178-88fa-409f-a33b-bcaee905b0d0@vivo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Linux EROFS file system List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org" , "huyue2@coolpad.com" Errors-To: linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linux-erofs" On 2024/1/26 10:41, Chunhai Guo wrote: > On 2024/1/22 15:42, Chunhai Guo wrote: >> On 2024/1/22 12:37, Gao Xiang wrote: >>> [你通常不会收到来自 hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com 的电子邮件。请访问 https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification，以了解这一点为什么很重要] >>> >>> On 2024/1/22 11:49, Chunhai Guo wrote: >>>> On 2024/1/22 10:07, Gao Xiang wrote: >>>>> [你通常不会收到来自 hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com 的电子邮件。请访问 https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification，以了解这一点为什么很重要] >>>>> >>>>> On 2024/1/20 22:55, Chunhai Guo wrote: >>>>>> Even with inplace decompression, sometimes extra temporary buffers are >>>>>> still needed for decompression. In low-memory scenarios, it would be >>>>>> better to try to allocate with GFP_NOWAIT on readahead first. That can >>>>>> help reduce the time spent on page allocation under memory pressure. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is an average reduction of 21% in page allocation time under >>>>> It would be better to add a table to show the absolute numbers too >>>>> (like what you did in the global pool commit.) If it's possible, there >>>>> is no need to send a update version for this, just reply the updated >>>>> commit message and I will update the commit manually. >>>> The table below shows detailed numbers. The reduction I mentioned before >>>> was not accurate enough. Please help correct the improvement from 21% to >>>> 20.21%. >>>> >>>> >>>> +--------------+----------------+---------------+---------+ >>>> | | w/o GFP_NOWAIT | w/ GFP_NOWAIT | diff | >>>> +--------------+----------------+---------------+---------+ >>>> | Average (ms) | 3364 | 2684 | -20.21% | >>>> +--------------+----------------+---------------+---------+ >>> Did it test without the 16k sliding window change? >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-erofs/69711d55-f7a2-420b-9ba8-fa2921f66a4c@vivo.com >> The result is tested with 64k sliding window change. >> >>> Could you benchmark these two optimizations together to >>> show the extreme optimized case without a global pool? >>> With a new table if possible? I will add this to >>> the commit message too. >> >> OK. I will reply to this email when the benchmark is finished. > > The benchmark has been completed and the table below shows that there is > an average 52.14% reduction in page allocation time with these two > optimizations. > > +--------------+----------------+---------------+---------+ | | 64k > window | 16k window | | | | w/o GFP_NOWAIT | w/ GFP_NOWAIT | diff | > +--------------+----------------+---------------+---------+ | Average > (ms) | 3364 | 1610 | -52.14% | > +--------------+----------------+---------------+---------+ > > Table below summarizes the results of these three benchmarks. > > +--------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+---------------+ > |              |   64k window   |   16k window   |   64k window  | 16k > window  | > |              | w/o GFP_NOWAIT | w/o GFP_NOWAIT | w/ GFP_NOWAIT | w/ > GFP_NOWAIT | > +--------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+---------------+ > | Average (ms) |     3364       |      2079      |      2684 | > 1610     | > +--------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+---------------+ > |     diff     |                |     -38.19%    |     -20.81% | > -52.14%   | > +--------------+----------------+----------------+---------------+---------------+ The tables shows in a mess, could you just list the numbers so I could refine this? Thanks, Gao Xiang