RE: [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:

quoted

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.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>