lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] zswap: Same-filled pages handling
> +static int zswap_is_page_same_filled(void *ptr, unsigned long *value)
> +{
> + unsigned int pos;
> + unsigned long *page;
> +
> + page = (unsigned long *)ptr;
> + for (pos = 1; pos < PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(*page); pos++) {
> + if (page[pos] != page[0])
> + return 0;
> + }
> + *value = page[0];
> + return 1;
> +}
> +

In theory you can speedup that check by memcmp(),
And do something like first:
memcmp(ptr, ptr + PAGE_SIZE/sizeof(*page)/2, PAGE_SIZE/2);
After compare 1/4 with 2/4
Then 1/8 with 2/8.
And after do you check with pattern, only on first 512 bytes.

Just because memcmp() on fresh CPU are crazy fast.
That can easy make you check less expensive.

> +static void zswap_fill_page(void *ptr, unsigned long value)
> +{
> + unsigned int pos;
> + unsigned long *page;
> +
> + page = (unsigned long *)ptr;
> + if (value == 0)
> + memset(page, 0, PAGE_SIZE);
> + else {
> + for (pos = 0; pos < PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(*page); pos++)
> + page[pos] = value;
> + }
> +}

Same here, but with memcpy().

P.S.
I'm just too busy to make fast performance test in user space,
but my recent experience with that CPU commands, show what that make a sense:
KSM patch: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9980803/
User space tests: https://github.com/Nefelim4ag/memcmpe
PAGE_SIZE: 65536, loop count: 1966080
memcmp: -28 time: 3216 ms, th: 40064.644611 MiB/s
memcmpe: -28, offset: 62232 time: 3588 ms, th: 35902.462390 MiB/s
memcmpe: -28, offset: 62232 time: 71 ms, th: 1792233.164286 MiB/s

IIRC, with code like our, you must see ~2.5GiB/s

Thanks.
--
Have a nice day,
Timofey.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-22 17:18    [W:0.151 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site