Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] staging: zcache: xcfmalloc support

Seth Jennings
2011-09-29T17:48:11Z

On 09/07/2011 09:09 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>
> I did some quick tests with "time" using the same program and the
> timings are very close (3 run average, little deviation):
>
> xvmalloc:
> zero filled 0m0.852s
> text (75%) 0m14.415s
>
> xcfmalloc:
> zero filled 0m0.870s
> text (75%) 0m15.089s
>
> I suspect that the small decrease in throughput is due to the
> extra memcpy in xcfmalloc. However, these timing, more than
> anything, demonstrate that the throughput is GREATLY effected
> by the compressibility of the data.

This is not correct. I found out today that the reason text
compressed so much more slowly is because my test program
was inefficiently filling text filled pages.

With my corrected test program:
xvmalloc:
zero filled 0m0.751s
text (75%) 0m2.273s

It is still slower on less compressible data but not to the
degree previously stated.

I don't have the xcfmalloc numbers yet, but I expect they are
almost the same.

--
Seth