lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v2 0/3] staging: zcache: xcfmalloc support
> From: Dave Hansen [mailto:dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] staging: zcache: xcfmalloc support
>
> On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 14:24 -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> > How would you suggest that I measure xcfmalloc performance on a "very
> > large set of workloads". I guess another form of that question is: How
> > did xvmalloc do this?
>
> Well, it didn't have a competitor, so this probably wasn't done. :)
>
> I'd like to see a microbenchmarky sort of thing. Do a million (or 100
> million, whatever) allocations, and time it for both allocators doing
> the same thing. You just need to do the *same* allocations for both.

One suggestion: We already know xvmalloc sucks IF the workload has
poor compression for most pages. We are looking to understand if xcfmalloc
is [very**N] bad when xvmalloc is good. So please measure BIG-NUMBER
allocations where compression is known to be OK on average (which is,
I think, a large fraction of workloads), rather than workloads where
xvmalloc already sucks.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-16 00:29    [W:0.115 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site